SC seeks ED response on 'timing' of Arvind Kejriwal's arrest
The Supreme Court recently interrogated the Enforcement Directorate (ED) about the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The court referred to the question of the timing of Kejriwal's arrest, which was shortly before the Lok Sabha elections. Hearing a plea by the CM challenging his arrest, the Supreme Court said, "Liberty is very exceedingly important...The last question is...[about]...timing of the arrest, which they have pointed out, the timing of the arrest, soon before the general elections".
Why does this story matter?
Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21 hours after the Delhi High Court refused to grant him interim protection from coercive action by the agency. Earlier on Monday, Kejriwal questioned the need and timing of his arrest after the Model Code of Conduct for the Lok Sabha polls came into force and said the statements and other legal documents relied upon by the agency for the action did not implicate him for 18 months prior to the arrest.
SC asks ED to respond by Friday afternoon
The court has asked the agency to come prepared with the response on Friday afternoon. To recall, the ED has accused AAP leaders of receiving ₹100 crore as kickbacks from a group of politicians and businessmen — called South Group — for making the now-scrapped Delhi liquor policy favourable to their business interests.
Kejriwal's legal representative presents argument
Kejriwal's legal representative, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, has argued that MP Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy (MSR) was coerced into testifying against Kejriwal in exchange for his son Raghav's bail. Singhvi highlighted inconsistencies in MSR's statements and noted that Raghav was granted bail immediately after. He also mentioned the arrest of Vijay Nair, a close associate of Kejriwal accused of accepting kickbacks, in November 2022 but pointed out no reason was given for delaying Kejriwal's arrest until March 2024.
Singhvi challenges ED's justification for Kejriwal's arrest
Singhvi further argued that the ED did not oppose Raghav's bail after MSR gave his testimony, suggesting a "farce" in the approvership process. He contended that ignoring summonses from the agency should not be grounds for arresting Kejriwal. Singhvi insisted that material evidence is required by the ED to justify infringing upon Kejriwal's liberty, stating "You (ED) have to demonstrate the necessity of arrest based on material available with the investigating agency."
