New Delhi:
Investigating agencies cannot “selectively choose” between material that speaks of an individual's innocence and material that can confirm guilt, the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday while hearing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea seeking his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the alleged liquor policy scam. The court asked the central agency – which had arrested Mr Kejriwal on March 21 – “If there is evidence pointing to guilt… and other evidence pointing to innocence… can you selectively pick and choose from them?”
“Is this an administrative task? You have to strike a balance between the two. You cannot rule out one aspect. You are depriving someone's right to life,” said Justice Dipankar Datta, part of a two-judge bench that also includes Justice Sanjiv. Khanna, he said firmly.
To this, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju – appearing for the ED – pointed out that the agency's job at this point was only to provide “reasons to believe” in the guilt of the individual.
“Material must show that the person is guilty of an offence… that is only material to be reflected in 'reasons to believe'… that is what Section 19 (of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act) contemplates. There is no need to I want to say that I have 'reason to believe' that I have considered everything material,” he explained.
And in a potentially key moment today, the court also asked Mr Raju why it had taken the central agency two years to act against the 'political executive' – referring to the chief minister and his party.
“…the problem is that it took two years to do this. It is not good for any research agency to say that it will take two years to excavate… when does the process start now? From one phase to another …from the beginning of the proceedings till the arrest…' the court asked the ED.
The court also asked the ED why “no question was asked about him (Mr Kejriwal)” during the investigation before issuing the summons and his arrest. “…the only problem is, why didn't you ask and why did you postpone it?”
“If I were to ask questions about Arvind Kejriwal from the beginning… it would have been called 'rogue'…” Mr. Raju replied and added, “It takes time to understand… we can't overnight postponements should be confirmed.”
Earlier, Mr Raju had retold statements of approvers – that is, ex-accused-turned-government witnesses – and stated that “there is no single statement that exonerates the AAP boss in this case”. Mr Raju's emphatic statements were intended to counter the arguments of Mr Kejriwal's camp that the Prime Minister had not been mentioned in the initial witness statements.
The AAP leader's camp had pointed out that the organization had argued – even on March 16, five days before his arrest – that Mr Kejriwal had not been named as a suspect.
Representing Mr Kejriwal, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi also pointed out that “all the evidence on which I have been arrested is from before 2023… all the material is from July 2023…”
During the previous hearing, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta had indicated that they could consider granting temporary bail to the Aam Aadmi Party leader so that he could campaign for the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.
Delhi's seven Lok Sabha seats – all won by the Bharatiya Janata Party in the 2019 elections – will go to the polls on May 25. The court recognized the time-consuming nature of this procedure and expressed its willingness to hear arguments from both sides in order to obtain consent. of bail.