Why Arvind Kejriwal Didn't Receive Relief From Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to deem Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest in the alleged liquor scam illegal. The single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma orally gave reasons for the decision in a detailed manner. Firstly, it is to be understood that the proceedings before the court were not of a bail application, but of a writ petition challenging the validity of the arrest made by the ED. The direct result of this arrest being illegal would have been Kejriwal’s release. However, that did not happen. 

The bench asserted, based on the Enforcement Directorate's submissions, that the evidence collected indicates Kejriwal's involvement in conspiring and actively participating in the use and concealment of proceeds of crime related to the liquor policy scam. 

The ED's case suggests his involvement both in his personal capacity and as the convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party.

Senior Advocate Manu Singhvi had previously raised a significant contention, arguing that the manner in which the statements of approvers, upon which Kejriwal's arrest was based, were recorded was flawed. This included the statements made by Sarath Reddy.

In response, the court clarified that the law regarding approvers has been established for over a century and cannot be construed as recently enacted to implicate Kejriwal. Questioning the method of recording approver statements would essentially cast doubt on the integrity of the court and its judges, as these statements are recorded under judicial authority, not by the ED.

On the issue of non-supply of documents and earlier statements of approvers, the court stated that Kejriwal has the right to inspect these documents at the appropriate stage of trial. 

However, the current stage does not warrant such scrutiny. Kejriwal will have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses during the trial, where these matters will be addressed. The court clarified that it cannot intervene in the trial court's proceedings or conduct a mini-trial within its writ jurisdiction.

Another point raised in favour of Kejriwal was that there is mysterious overlap of timing of his arrest with the Lok Sabha elections.

To this, the high court bench explained that Kejriwal's arrest was in connection with a money laundering case, and the court has to follow the law regardless of when the elections are happening. The bench mentioned that Kejriwal should have known that the Lok Sabha elections were coming up and should have cooperated with the investigation.

When it comes to whether Kejriwal needed to be arrested at that time, the court said that ED had enough evidence to justify his arrest. The court stressed that political factors shouldn't influence legal decisions.

Furthermore, the court clarified that this case isn't about a conflict between the central government and Kejriwal. It's a legal matter between Kejriwal and the Enforcement Directorate.

Kejriwal also said that Reddy's statements against him were suspicious because they were followed by a big payment to the BJP through the electoral bond scheme, suggesting there might be a money trail.

But the court basically said that it's not their job to worry about who gives out election tickets, or who buys electoral bonds. They're more focused on the legal matters at hand, rather than the political side of things.

Currently, Kejriwal is in judicial custody in Delhi's Tihar Jail till April 15.