HC denies interim relief
Ghosh and other BJP members/candidates from making or spreading such “personal objectionable/disrespectful remarks” against Mamata Banerjee and any other members/candidates of the party. It had demanded immediate action against him for “blatant violation of the MCC” and making such distorted and disrespectful statements against the Chief Minister of West Bengal.
Meanwhile, sources said that the BJP, on Wednesday, sent a show-cause notice to Dilip Ghosh for his remarks against Banerjee.
Ghosh is learnt to have issued an apology where he regretted his choice of words but alleged that even the TMC made derogatory remarks against state BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari and his father Sisir Adhikari.
the application for interim relief, with a return date of April 3, 2024. The court ordered the ED to ensure that responses are filed to the main petition and the application for Kejriwal’s interim release by April 2, 2024.
Kejriwal, who was arrested on March 21 and subsequently remanded to the ED’s custody until March 28 by a Delhi court, sought immediate release on the grounds that his arrest was unlawful. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED, stated that the “voluminous” petition was only served to them on
Tuesday, and they should be given time to record their stance.
During the hearing, Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, stated that the coercive action was based on the uncorroborated statements of co-accused-turned-approvers, Raghav Magunta and P Sarath Chandra Reddy. He pointed out several “glaring issues” that required the high court’s immediate decision.
Justice Sharma noted that it would be unfair not to allow the ED an opportunity to counter the petitioner’s stance by filing a detailed response, especially when the relief sought in the main petition and the interim application, i.e., his release, is similar and identical.
The court observed that the ED may have some “additional material”, gathered during the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, which may be crucial in deciding the current case. Therefore, the court rejected Singhvi’s argument that the respondent is not required to file a response.
The court also stated that any order releasing the petitioner from custody would amount to granting the petitioner bail or interim bail as an interim measure, and its writ jurisdiction is not a “ready substitute” for a bail application.
Singhvi contended the arrest of a sitting chief minister on the cusp of elections after a model code of conduct had come into force was against the basic structure and the concept of a “level playing field” for polls.
He alleged that the arrest was without any “necessity”, as mandated under the provisions of PMLA.
“Object of the arrest was not to find material but to disable me and my party politically. My prayer is, release me now”, he argued.
“Of course, a sitting CM can be arrested. The question is the timing,” Singhvi added.
The senior lawyer also argued
that any “non-cooperation” cannot become a ground for arrest, adding, “Non-cooperation is the most abused phrase since ED got hyperactive”.
Singhvi also claimed that exculpatory statements in favour of the accused were suppressed by the agency which was making a “mockery of fair process”.
He also alleged that the agency’s request for time to file a response was motivated and a delay tactic.
“Democracy itself is involved. Basic structure is involved. Level playing field is involved. Even an hour spent in custody is far too long if arrest is illegal,” Singhvi said.
He further said that the vicarious liability cannot be imposed on Kejriwal for any alleged violation of PMLA by his party.
The case pertains to the alleged corruption and money laundering in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi government’s excise policy for 202122, which was later scrapped.