Delhi High Court dismissed Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest and remand in a money laundering case related to an alleged liquor policy scam. The court stated that the evidence collected by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) indicated Kejriwal’s involvement in conspiring with others in the scam, both in his personal capacity and as the convenor of AAP.

The court noted that Kejriwal’s refusal to cooperate with the investigation and the subsequent delay were affecting individuals already in judicial custody. It emphasized that judges are bound by legal principles, not political considerations, and judgments are given based on the law, not external factors.

Regarding the arrest, the court affirmed that the ED possessed sufficient evidence to justify Kejriwal’s arrest. It highlighted the importance of impartiality, stating that the case is between Kejriwal and the ED, not the central government.

The judgment confirmed the vicarious liability of Kejriwal, with Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) being applicable in this instance. The court underscored the need for vigilance to ensure that judicial decisions are not influenced by extraneous factors.

The AAP’s legal team is expected to meet with senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi to discuss the findings of the order and prepare documents for a challenge in the Supreme Court. The party is likely to move the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s decision.

In response to the verdict, AAP leader Saurabh Bharadwaj stated that smaller court judgments can be changed by higher courts, expressing faith in the Supreme Court’s impartiality. He cited previous cases where the Supreme Court granted relief despite initial rejections by lower courts.

The BJP welcomed the High Court’s decision, asserting that it exposed the AAP’s alleged misconduct. Party spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi emphasized that there should be no differentiation in the application of the law, regardless of one’s position or political affiliation.

The ruling BJP continued to criticize Kejriwal, stating that the court’s decision demonstrated his involvement in the policy formulation directly. The party viewed the verdict as a blow to the AAP’s pride and questioned their motives.

The judgment’s implications extend beyond Kejriwal’s individual case, as it sets a precedent for accountability and transparency in governance. It underscores the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that no individual, regardless of their position, is above scrutiny.

By : Kruthiga V S

—-

#arvindkejriwal #delhihighcourt #moneylaundering #aap #enforcementdirectorate #supremecourt #bjp #preventionofmoneylaunderingact #legalprinciples #judiciary #accountability #transparency #ruleoflaw #governance #politics #corruption