Delhi Excise Policy Case: ED Opposes Kejriwal’s Plea Against Arrest

The Enforcement Directorate on Thursday has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court opposing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea against his arrest and stated that he didn’t cooperate with the central agency despite multiple summons issued to him.

The ED told the top court that Arvind Kejriwal was avoiding interrogation by not remaining present before the investigating officer despite being summoned 9 times.

ED stated in its affidavit, “Kejriwal, by his conduct, has, himself, contributed and aided the investigating officer regarding the existence of the necessity to arrest, apart from the material in possession of the IO, to form the satisfaction that he is guilty of the offence of money laundering.”

The ED stated that, the agency has been able to recover key evidence that directly reveals the role of Kejriwal in processes & activities relating to the proceeds of crime.

What the Agency States?

The agency stated, “A total of approximately 170 mobile phones were changed/destroyed by 36 persons (accused and other persons involved) during the period of the scam and when the scam and irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22 became public. In this manner, the crucial digital evidence of the scam and money trail have been actively destroyed by the accused and other persons involved in this scam. Despite such active and criminal destruction of evidence, the agency has been able to recover key evidence that directly reveals the role of the petitioner in the process and activities relating to the proceeds of crime.”

It further added, “The conclusion of the destruction of mobile phones is based on the fact that these mobile phones were not recovered during intensive searches conducted by ED and then on examination of these persons, they were unable to produce them or produced them in a completely or significantly formatted state.”

The affidavit read, “For investigation, Kejriwal was asked to provide a password to his mobile phones during the search on March 21, 2024 and then during ED custody, the same was asked again and his reply was recorded in his statement, wherein he refused to share the same. Even his statements during custody would reveal that despite being confronted with materials, the petitioner chose to give completely evasive answers.”

ED further stated, that Kejriwal has been “arrested bona fide” and not for any mala fide or extraneous reasons.

More in the Case

Furthermore it added,”It is categorically denied that the arrest was mala fide.”

The affidavit of ED stated, “The arrest of a person, however high he may be, for the commission of an offence based on material, can never violate the concept of free and fair elections. Treating a politician differently from an ordinary criminal in a matter of arrest would amount to arbitrary and irrational exercise of the power of arrest, which would violate the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.”

The agency, in its affidavit, stated that the investigation of this liquor scam has to be seen in the context of large-scale destruction of evidence.

Kejriwal approached the supreme court challenging his arrest by ED and his subsequent remand in the excise policy case.

Earlier, the apex court asked the Central Agency to file its response to Kejriwal’s plea.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, Other Courts, International