Delhi HC Dismisses Kejriwal’s Plea, Highlights Political Angles Unaddressed in Court

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, dismissed Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea against his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Liquor Policy scam. The verdict, handed down on April 9, upheld the legality of Kejriwal’s arrest by the ED, shedding light on several crucial aspects that emerged during the proceedings.

1. Electoral Bonds Purchase Not Under Court’s Jurisdiction: Justice Sharma emphasized that the court’s concern doesn’t extend to who purchased electoral bonds, implying that such matters fall beyond the purview of the case. Kejriwal had alleged that significant sums were paid to the BJP through electoral bonds, a claim not considered pertinent to the case.
2. Question of Document Supply and Approver Statements: The court clarified that the entitlement to inspect documents arises at a later stage of the trial, not during the current phase. Kejriwal had contended that earlier statements of approvers were omitted by the ED to suit its agenda, a matter not pertinent to the present stage of proceedings.
3. Absence of Special Privileges: Justice Sharma underscored that investigating agencies cannot be directed to conduct investigations based on an individual’s convenience. There’s no room for granting special privileges to a chief minister, emphasizing the impartiality of the law regardless of one’s position.
4. Relevance of Arrest Timing: The court deemed the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest as irrelevant to the case, clarifying that the examination must adhere to legal parameters. Kejriwal’s failure to join the investigation, despite an impending election declaration, was highlighted as a significant factor in the court’s decision.
5. Avoidance of Political Battles: Justice Sharma reiterated that the court is not a forum for settling political disputes, emphasizing that the matter pertains solely to Kejriwal and the ED. The ruling aims to maintain the integrity of the legal process, devoid of political considerations.
6. Sufficient Evidence Presented by ED: The court acknowledged the ED’s presentation of substantial evidence regarding the alleged financial transactions for the Goa elections. The evidence, including statements from approvers and candidates, formed a robust basis for the ED’s claims.

In response to the verdict, AAP leader and Delhi Minister Saurabh Bhardwaj voiced dissent, indicating a potential appeal to the Supreme Court against the ruling. He characterized the case as a political conspiracy, asserting that no illicit funds were recovered by the ED or CBI.

As the legal saga continues, the ruling sheds light on the complex intersection of law and politics, underscoring the judiciary’s commitment to impartiality and due process.

 If you like this law news, share it with a friend!