Senior Advocate Singhvi questions timing of Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest before Supreme Court

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi while arguing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Delhi liquor policy case alleged that the arrest was consequent to Model Code of Conduct being put in place, even though there was no reason to believe or new material with the probe agency to take the action.

When the top court bench asked if CM Kejriwal has filed any bail application before the trial court, Senior Advocate Singhvi replied that no bail application has been filed, instead, the writ petition has been filed challenging the arrest. He stated that the arrest was illegal for violating Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and hence the writ petition dealt with the wider import.

The senior counsel argued that there was no need for Kejriwal’s arrest and pleaded that none of the documents including FIRs, chargesheets, supplementary chargesheets, prosecution complaints, etc. filed between August 2022 till the date of arrest connected Arvind Kejriwal with the alleged scam even remotely. Singhvi pointed out that the Chief Minister was not named in the CBI FIR or in the ED Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).

He also vehemently pressed that there were also chargesheets by the CBI and prosecution complaints lodged by the ED which did not name Kejriwal. However, Arvind Kejriwal was arrested based on some Section 50 PMLA statements, which were made under questionable circumstances but taken to be the gospel truth.

Referring to the statements recorded and relied upon by the investigation agency, Singhvi stated that not all statements of Raghav Magunta, Buchi Babu, Sarath Reddy etc. name Kejriwal. It was stressed that Sarath Reddy never named Kejriwal in nine statements given to the ED – only the 10th statement was incriminating and the same was not corroborated; rather, Reddy was found to have purchased electoral bonds for the ruling party, Singhvi alleged.

When Justice Khanna questioned if the aforesaid  arguments are not better raised in a bail application, the counsel contended that the PMLA sets a higher threshold for bail. He noted that the Supreme Court upheld the stringent bail provision under Section 45 of the PMLA on the ground that the statute set a higher threshold for arrest too. Hence, it was essential for the court to examine if there were sufficient reasons for arrest, he mentioned.

Arguing that an allegedly incriminating statement was made in July last year, yet Kejriwal was arrested in March, 2024, Senior Advocate Singhvi highlighted that the AAP leader’s arrest immediately succeeded the declaration of Lok Sabha elections.

Singhvi submitted that 15 statements do not name Arvind Kejriwal. However, the 16th statement taken from someone behind bars, who  gets bail later and turns approver becomes the basis. He pointed out that the statement was made in July last year but the Chief Minister was arrested in March after the Model Code of Conduct was declared. The counsel stated that either the ED should be having some material to connect to Kejriwal or there is some imminent material on guilt or some basis.

Furthermore, he drew the court’s attention to the dates of all inculpatory statements and asked if ED was letting a guilty CM roam freely up until elections were declared. Mentioning the dates of these 5 statements starting in December 2022 and ending in July 2023, Senior Advocate Singhvi questioned why the arrest took place in March 2024? 

Additionally, Singhvi also remarked that it was amusing how the same documents as were relied on in former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia’s case were being referred to by the ED here, after a long time, hinting that there was no new material to justify arrest.

After hearing Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi submissions for about an hour, the Supreme Court bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta scheduled the matter for tomorrow.