The Delhi CM and Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) national convenor had filed a plea, challenging his arrest by the ED in the case. The financial probe agency opposed his petition, saying the probe is not over yet.

Follow LIVE updates on Arvind Kejriwal news here

Kejriwal Vs ED | Who said what?

1. ED opposes Kejriwal’s plea: Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju said, “As far as Kejriwal is concerned, the investigation is not over. It is at a nascent stage.” He further argued saying that Kejriwal had agreed to the remand and didn’t oppose it.

“He [Kejriwal] voluntarily accepts please remand me further. Can he challenge the remand order? Or is it barred by waiver?,” the ED’s lawyer asked.

ALSO READ: Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal’s ED summons challenge listed for April 24

2. ‘AAP is a company’: The ED said the AAP is a company under section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). “A political party is a union of individuals. Therefore, now we have established that he was incharge and responsible for the affairs of AAP. AAP is the whole and sole,” the lawyer representing the ED was quoted by Live Law as saying.

3. Kejriwal’s role in case: The ED’s lawyer said Kejriwal’s “role” is not required in the case. But “what is required to be looked at is that he was responsible for the affairs of the company/party,” the agency was quoted by Bar and Bench as saying. The ED cited Section 70 of the PMLA to prove this.

The ED noted that Kejriwal was AAP’s national convenor and Delhi’s Chief Minister when the “offence” was committed. “He takes all the decisions. The final decision with respect to all the major affairs of the party is taken by the national convenor. If the offence is committed by the company, he is responsible for it,” the ED said.

ALSO READ: Delhi HC reserves judgement in Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging arrest

Reacting to this, Kejriwal’s lawyer, Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, said the ED argument is “misplaced”. Singhvi was quoted by Bar and Bench as saying, “Section 70 PMLA is a misplaced argument. It nowhere permits a person who is not guilty to be covered under the company head. You can’t just pick up 70 and apply it.”

4. Questions raised on arrest timing: Kejriwal argued in the court that the arrest reeks of the timing issue — to not participate in the election and to try and demolish the political party before the first vote is cast. “The only object is to humiliate and insult. The true object of the arrest is to disable me,” he said.

The ED responded to this by asking that if a crime is committed two before the elections, won’t the accused be arrested then?

“Supposing a political person commits murder two days before elections. This means he can’t be arrested? Does basic structure come into play?…I commit murder or rape but I can’t be arrested before elections. What kind of argument is this,” it was quoted by Live Law as saying.

It added, “…there are a large number of cases where the dead body is not found. But there are prosecutions and even convictions. That doesn’t mean there is no murder.” 

The ED argued that the fact that liquor policy was “fudged to give profits and receive kickbacks is long back” and that the “election is only being used as a bogey. It is not as if ED has become active now.”

5. Can’t arrest CM before elections?: The ED said, “Aam aadmi (common) has to go behind bars if he has committed a crime but because you are a chief minister you can’t be arrested?”

“You will loot the country but no one can touch you because the elections are coming? You say your arrest will infringe on basic structure? What type of basic structure is this?,” the ED added.

6. ‘Actual proceeds of crime is irrelevant’: The ED said it found the money trail but noted that the finding of the actual proceeds of crime is irrelevant if “we make out a case that you were involved in money laundering.”

“We have located the money trail. The money may have been used and that’s why it can’t be found,” the ED said, adding that officials have established evidence shows that kickbacks were used for the election campaign of the AAP in Goa. “Beneficiary was AAP. The offence is committed by AAP,” it said.

Reacting sharply to Kejriwal’s argument, the ED said, “The argument is if I have done something, then something will be found out from my home. But if you have passed on the money to someone else, then how can that money be found out at your home?”

Milestone Alert!
Livemint tops charts as the fastest growing news website in the world 🌏 Click here to know more.

Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it’s all here, just a click away! Login Now!

Published: 03 Apr 2024, 07:16 PM IST