The Enforcement Directorate on Saturday has informed the Rouse Avenue Court that the sanction obtained in the Central Bureau of Investigation case was broad enough to cover not just offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but also other potential offences stemming from the same set of facts.
This submission was in response to a plea by Delhi’s former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who had argued that he had not been provided with a copy of the sanction order in the ED’s case against him.
Kejriwal’s plea was based on a recent Delhi High Court hearing, where the Solicitor General, representing the ED, had stated that the necessary sanction had already been secured when the chargesheet was filed.
In its response, the ED’s Special Counsel, Zoheb Hossain, clarified that the sanction obtained in the CBI case was sufficient to cover both the Prevention of Corruption Act and any other offences that could arise from the facts in the case, enabling the court to take cognizance.
Following this submission, the bench, led by Justice Kaveri Baweja, disposed of Kejriwal’s plea.
Kejriwal’s counsel, Advocate Mudit Jain, had earlier argued that the chargesheet documents, both relied upon and unreleased, did not contain any copy of the required sanction order.
On November 21, 2024, the Delhi High Court issued a notice on Kejriwal’s plea challenging the trial court’s decision to take cognizance of the ED chargesheet in the alleged excise policy scam.
However, the bench, led by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, did not grant a stay on the trial proceedings at this stage.
The matter was scheduled for further hearing on December 20, 2024, to consider arguments on both the stay application and the plea seeking to quash the trial court’s order.
Appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, opposed Kejriwal’s plea, asserting that the necessary sanction had been obtained when the prosecution complaint (chargesheet) was filed.
Kejriwal, however, challenged the trial court’s decision, claiming that the court had erred by taking cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which is punishable under Section 4 of the same Act, without first obtaining prior sanction under Section 197(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for prosecuting a public servant like him.
Arvind Kejriwal is currently out on bail in both the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) cases related to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy.
The ED has accused Kejriwal and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders of deliberately designing the excise policy with loopholes to benefit themselves and foster cartel formations.
The ED alleged that AAP leaders received kickbacks from liquor businesses in exchange for preferential treatment, including license fee waivers, discounts, and relief during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Furthermore, the ED claims that the “scam” involved awarding wholesale liquor distribution rights to private entities with a fixed 12% margin, in return for a 6% kickback.
The ED also accuses AAP leaders of influencing the outcome of the Punjab and Goa elections in early 2022.
As the case moves forward, Kejriwal’s legal battle continues, with his challenge to the trial court’s cognizance decision underlining the contentious legal and political dimensions of the ongoing investigation.
