Direct Chats Found Between Arvind Kejriwal And Hawala Operator: ED Informs Supreme Court As It Reserves Judgment In Challenge Against Arrest
The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict in Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging the Delhi High Court's Judgment upholding his arrest in the PMLA case. Currently, Kejriwal is out on interim bail till June 1. He was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 21 in a money laundering case stemming from the Delhi excise policy scam.
After hearing the arguments at length, the Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta said, "Arguments heard. Judgments reserved."
"The fact that we have reserved the judgment, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Appellant, the appellant if advised may move the trial court for grant of bail in accordance with law," the Bench ordered.
Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Vikram Chaudhary appearing for Kejriwal requested the Bench to add the word "expeditiously".
Justice Khanna said, "It goes without saying...I am not going to say anything more. The Court further granted liberty to the parties to file additional notes of arguments within one week.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appearing for the ED informed the Bench that "Now we have found chat of Arvind Kejriwal and the hawala operator, direct chats."
To this submission, Singhvi argued, "This is for whom? The Court ? or the Media?... This is unfair..this information is being given now on the last day at 4:30 PM, this is suppression of evidence...this is not the role of a prosecutor...this is to create doubt in the last minute for your Lordships..this is not fair to speak like this on the last day."
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta also for ED, submitted, "We are not at a press conference, we are addressing the Court." Mehta also informed the Bench that ED has arrested the hawala operator with whom they have personal chats of Kejriwal.
Accordingly, the Court reserved its verdict in the Appeal.
Yesterday, the Court reacted to the statement of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is now on interim bail, that if people vote for broom (a symbol of AAP), he will not have to return to jail as directed by the Apex Court. When the statement was pointed out by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Court had said that if the rule of law will govern the country, Arvind Kejriwal will have to return to prison on June 2 in compliance with its order. The Court had added that it is an order of the Apex Court and that it does not mind criticism of its order, but that the order is clear on when Kejriwal has to surrender.
Pertinently, on May 10, the Court had granted Interim Bail to the Delhi Chief Minister till June 1. On May 7, the Bench had clarified that, if it releases Kejriwal on bail, it does not want him to perform official duties.
Last week, the Court had observed that it may consider granting interim bail to Kejriwal on account of elections. Earlier on April 29, the Bench had asked the Senior Counsel appearing for the Delhi CM, "Why have you not filed any Application For bail?"
Previously, the Enforcement Directorate had filed an extensive affidavit-in-reply to the Special Leave Petition by the Delhi Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal, assailing the order passed by the Delhi High Court upholding the arrest and remand in the money laundering case. In its reply, the ED had alleged that Arvind Kejriwal is the kingpin and key conspirator in the Delhi Liquor Policy Excise Scam, responsible for the mass destruction of evidence, and the main facilitator of the new policy for the bribe givers.
The ED had earlier, stated in its affidavit that there are reasons to believe, based on material in possession, that Kejriwal is guilty of the offence of money laundering. The ED had also made a comparative table to demonstrate the changes made that were allegedly arbitrary and irrational, made only to ensure large-scale profits to the bribe givers. It was also stated by the ED that Arvind Kejriwal was asked to provide the password to his mobile phones again and again, but he refused to share the same and even his statements during custody would reveal that despite being confronted with materials, the petitioner chose to give completely evasive answers.
Cause Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement [SLP (Crl) No. 5154/2024]