Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, in its order, said Kejriwal collected kickbacks as the AAP’s national convenor
The Delhi High Court dismissed chief minister and AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest and Enforcement Directorate remand in the excise policy case on Tuesday. After the setback from the High Court, the Aam Aadmi Party said that Kejriwal will move the Supreme Court for relief.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, in its order today, said Kejriwal collected kickbacks as the AAP’s national convenor.
Read More: Paytm Payments Bank CEO Surinder Chawla resigns
“The material collected by ED reveals Mr Arvind Kejriwal conspired and was actively involved in use and concealment of proceeds of crime. The ED case also reveals that he was involved in his personal capacity as well as convenor of AAP,” read the court order.
The HC said there cannot be any specific privilege for any one including the Chief Minister.
“This court is of the opinion that the accused has been arrested and his arrest and remand has to be examined as per law and not as per timing of elections,” the High Court said.
‘JUDGES ARE BOUND BY LAW NOT POLITICS’: HC
The HC further said that Kejriwal’s challenge to timing of arrest before General elections in absence of any mala fide on part of ED is “not sustainable”.
It said that casting aspersions on process of pardon and approver is like questioning the credibility of the judge. “We hold that judges are bound by law not politics. Judgements are given on legal principles not political considerations,” the HC remarked.
The High Court further said that the ED was in possession of enough material which had led them to arrest Kejriwal. “Non joining of investigation by Kejriwal, delay caused by him was also impacting those in judicial custody,” it said.
Read More: India may devote more sugar to ethanol in blow to export hopes
“The present case is not a case between the Central government and Mr Kejriwal but between Mr Kejriwal and ED. The Court must remain vigilant that it is not influenced by any extraneous factors,” it said.
The Delhi High Court, last week, had reserved the order on Kejriwal’s plea. The chief minister had challenged his arrest and his remand in the Enforcement Directorate’s custody.
The Aam Aadmi Party chief questioned the “timing” of his arrest by the federal agency saying that it was in contravention of the Constitution’s basic structure, including democracy, free and fair elections and level playing field.
However, the ED opposed Kejriwal’s plea saying that he cannot claim “immunity” from arrest on the grounds of elections because the law is applied to both him and an “aam aadmi” (common man) equally.
During the hearing, the central probe agency also told the court that it wanted to seize properties belonging to AAP, but could not do so as the party would cite election dates.
The ED also said that the political party, which was the “major beneficiary” of the proceeds of the crime, has committed the offence through Kejriwal.
The probe agency further said that the investigation over Kejriwal’s role in the liquor policy case was at a nascent stage even as it claimed that it had located the money trail.
KEJRIWAL TO MOVE SC
Senior AAP leader and Delhi minister Saurabh Bharadwaj told a press conference soon after the HC order that they are hopeful the Supreme Court will provide relief to Kejriwal in the same way it granted bail to AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh recently.
“We respect the institution of the high court but we respectfully submit that we do not agree with its order and will move the Supreme Court against it,” Bharadwaj said. “The so-called excise policy scam is the biggest political conspiracy to finish off the party and Kejriwal,” he alleged.
ARVIND KEJRIWAL’S ARREST
Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal is under judicial custody in Tihar Jail till April 15. He was arrested by the ED on March 21.
The AAP national convenor faces allegations of direct involvement in a conspiracy related to the formulation of excise policy favouring specific individuals. He is also accused of soliciting kickbacks from liquor businessmen in exchange for favours, as claimed by the probe agency.
