New Delhi:
The arrest of Arvind Kejriwal is illegal, counsel to the Delhi Prime Minister told the Supreme Court today. Mr Kejriwal, whose name was not included in 10 documents – including CBI chargesheets and ED charge sheet – till December 2023 – was arrested from his home without any interrogation or recording of his statement as required by the Anti-Money Laundering Act. said senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
“The power to arrest is not the same as the need to arrest. There must be guilt, not mere suspicion… This is also the threshold under Section 45 PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act),” he added.
Mr Kejriwal has challenged his arrest in the top court and filed an interim bail petition, arguing that the arrest is illegal and his subsequent placement in custody is also illegal.
Asked why Mr Kejriwal did not file a bail application in the court, Mr Singhvi told Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta that they approached the Supreme Court as it has “wider jurisdiction”.
The Enforcement Directorate had arrested Mr Kejriwal on March 21 after the Delhi High Court refused to grant him protection. The chief minister is currently in Tihar jail. Mr Kejriwal has argued that the court's refusal to grant protection cannot be a ground for arrest.
“The interim denial of my bail cannot be a reason to come to my house for arrest. The arrest did not take place for 1.5 years. They arrested me from my house. They did not record a Section 50 statement there,” said the counselor.
In his affidavit, Mr Kejriwal has condemned his arrest as politically motivated, arguing that it was aimed at providing unfair advantages to the ruling party during the ongoing general elections. The case, he has argued, is a prime example of the central government's misuse of investigative agencies to harass political opponents.
The Enforcement Directorate has argued that Mr Kejriwal's arrest was necessary due to his “completely uncooperative attitude”.
The affidavit stated that Mr. Kejriwal avoided interrogation by not remaining present with the investigating officer despite being summoned nine times and that while recording his statement under Section 17 of the PMLA, he was evasive and uncooperative used to be.
The hearing will continue tomorrow.