In a notable development, the Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) concerning the now-defunct Delhi Excise Policy [Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement].
A bench composed of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta observed that specific legal issues raised by Kejriwal in his plea against his arrest require examination by a larger bench of the apex court.
Therefore, while referring these issues to a larger bench, the Court decided it was appropriate to release Kejriwal on interim bail.
“Considering the right to life and the referral of the matter to a larger bench, we order the release of Arvind Kejriwal on interim bail,” the Court stated.
Arvind Kejriwal was taken into custody by the ED on March 21 in connection with a case that alleges a criminal conspiracy orchestrated by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, including Manish Sisodia, to create loopholes in the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22 to benefit certain liquor vendors. The investigative agencies claimed that the funds generated from this scheme were used to finance the AAP’s election campaign in Goa.
In its recent order, the Supreme Court noted that the legal issue regarding the “necessity to arrest” under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) needs to be examined by a larger bench of the court.
Section 19 states that if the ED, based on the material it possesses, has reason to believe that a person is guilty of an offense punishable under PMLA, it may arrest that person.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that the evidence cited by the ED to justify Kejriwal’s arrest was not available at the time of his arrest and was presented later.
“All evidence predates July and August 2023. This evidence was already present in the Sisodia case…So what new evidence was there in Kejriwal’s case?… The evidence is all before August 2023,” Singhvi stated.
No material was provided to Kejriwal regarding the use of funds in the Goa elections at the time of his arrest, Singhvi added.
“The entire charge is ₹100 crores…This charge is from August 2023. This is old news…The arrest in March 2024…no money has been transferred,” he submitted.
Singhvi also argued that there must be a “necessity to arrest” as a precondition under Section 19 PMLA.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju countered, arguing that the ED is not required to provide incriminating material to the accused at the time of arrest.
“The reason to believe (that an accused has committed an offense) is based on the material before the ED officer. In criminal law, the accused is not entitled to any copy before the chargesheet is filed…otherwise, evidence could be tampered with and witnesses threatened,” ASG Raju stated.
The Supreme Court observed that the mere ‘need to interrogate’ a person does not equate to a necessity to arrest them.
Whether the “need and necessity” for formal parameters of arrest can be read into Section 19 will be considered by a larger bench, the top court noted.
However, Kejriwal will remain in custody despite receiving bail in the ED case due to his detention in a case initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
