High drama in the courtroom! Arvind Kejriwal's arrest!
The delhi High court witnessed intense arguments on wednesday (April 3, 2024) as chief minister arvind kejriwal challenged his arrest in a money laundering case related to the delhi Liquor Policy. Representing kejriwal, his lawyer Abhishek manu Singhvi and Solicitor General Raju, on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), presented compelling arguments during the hearing.
Disputing Singhvi's arguments, ASG Raju accused kejriwal of attempting to influence the investigation by destroying electronic devices and not opposing his remand. He argued, "Kejriwal is riding two horses." When Singhvi questioned the timing of the arrest, ASG Raju countered, "The criminal is put in jail. How does it affect the basic structure of the Constitution?"
Singhvi also raised concerns regarding the arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He questioned the necessity of arrest when ED lacked sufficient evidence to issue a summons and emphadata-sized the difficulty in obtaining bail under PMLA. ASG Raju rebutted, asserting that ED possessed primary evidence of money laundering, and accused individuals had confessed.
Asserting the legality of the arrest, ASG Raju stated, "We followed every legal aspect, starting from formulating the liquor policy, where kejriwal had a role in everything." Singhvi countered by questioning the application of Section 70 of PMLA to a political party, arguing that it was unjust. ASG Raju clarified that kejriwal was treated similarly to a company under the law, justifying the imposition of PMLA provisions.
Disputing Singhvi's arguments, ASG Raju accused kejriwal of attempting to influence the investigation by destroying electronic devices and not opposing his remand. He argued, "Kejriwal is riding two horses." When Singhvi questioned the timing of the arrest, ASG Raju countered, "The criminal is put in jail. How does it affect the basic structure of the Constitution?"
Singhvi also raised concerns regarding the arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He questioned the necessity of arrest when ED lacked sufficient evidence to issue a summons and emphadata-sized the difficulty in obtaining bail under PMLA. ASG Raju rebutted, asserting that ED possessed primary evidence of money laundering, and accused individuals had confessed.
Asserting the legality of the arrest, ASG Raju stated, "We followed every legal aspect, starting from formulating the liquor policy, where kejriwal had a role in everything." Singhvi countered by questioning the application of Section 70 of PMLA to a political party, arguing that it was unjust. ASG Raju clarified that kejriwal was treated similarly to a company under the law, justifying the imposition of PMLA provisions.