Money trail missing, ED actions high-handed: CM
IN A REJOINDER TO ED’S REPLY FILED ON HIS PETITION CHALLENGING HIS ARREST, KEJRIWAL SAID THAT HE HAS ALWAYS COOPERATED WITH THE PROBE
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal filed his response to the Directorate of Enforcement’s (ED) affidavit in the Supreme Court on Saturday and said that there exists “no proof or material” demonstrating that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) received funds or advanced kickbacks from the South group, let alone utilising them in the Goa election campaign.
“Not a single Rupee was traced back to the AAP, and the allegations put forth in this regard are devoid of any tangible evidence, rendering them vague and baseless without any corroboration,” Kejriwal said in response to the ED affidavit.
“No proof of even any cash payment was given. There exists no proof or material demonstrating that the AAP received funds or advanced kickbacks from the South group, let alone utilised them in the Goa election campaign. Not a single Rupee was traced back to the AAP, and the allegaspeaks tions put forth in this regard are devoid of any tangible evidence, rendering them vague, baseless without any corroboration,” the affidavit stated.
Recently, ED had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court opposing Delhi Chief Kejriwal’s plea against his arrest. Filing his rejoinder on ED’s affidavit, Kejriwal said that the central agency is abusing its power of arrest in the middle of the general election.
He said that the mode, manner and timing of his arrest just before the schedule of the Lok Sabha elections had been announced and the Model Code of Conduct had come into play, volumes about “arbitrariness” of the ED.
“This timeline establishes the fact that Kejriwal has been arrested intentionally with a malafide intent without any necessity to arrest,” stated the rejoinder of the Chief Minister.
The present case is a “classic case” of how the ruling partyled central government has misused the central agency- ED and its wide powers under PMLA to crush its biggest political opponent -Aam Aadmi Party and its leaders, it added.
Kejriwal in his response further said that there is a glaring absence of material indicating his involvement in any criminal activity relating to the predicate offence whether it be concealment, possession, acquisition, or utilisation of proceeds of crime to attract the vice of Section 3 PMLA.
ED illegally ‘picked up’ a sitting Chief Minister and the National Convenor of one of the six national Opposition parties in India on March 21, 2024, that is, five days after the general elections were called and the
Model Code of Conduct was put in place, affidavit further stated.
Kejriwal said that the AAP is in direct opposition to the ruling political party at the Centre in the ongoing general elections and voting has already commenced as of April 19.
The affidavit further said that during an election cycle when political activity is at its highest, Kejriwal’s illegal arrest has caused grave prejudice to his political party and will give the ruling party at the Centre an unjust upper hand in the ongoing elections.
“A level playing field--which is a pre-requisite for ‘free and fair elections’- has clearly been compromised with the illegal arrest of the Petitioner,” the affidavit read.
He said he has always cooperated with the investigation, and the apex court has held in various judgements that noncooperation does not mean that the person be arrested.
The affidavit of further said that ED attributed the alleged “large-scale destruction of evidence” as a ground to arrest Kejriwal, however, it said, “there is not even a single averment alleging the destruction of evidence of any kind by Kejriwal and hence the said ground is devoid of any merit.”
“Moreover, the respondent (ED), being devoid of any cogent reason, is now raising frivolous and fictitious grounds for justifying the illegal arrest of the Petitioner (Kejriwal),” stated the rejoined.
Kejriwal had approached the top court challenging his arrest by ED and his subsequent remand in the excise policy case. The apex court had earlier asked the central agency to file its response to Kejriwal’s plea.
ED had on Wednesday filed a comprehensive affidavit in the Supreme Court to counter Delhi chief minister Kejriwal’s petition and said that there are no special provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) that differentiates the arrest of a chief minister and an ordinary citizen.
“There are no different provisions in PMLA, 2002 for different standards of evidence to be available to arrest a chief minister or a common citizen and the petitioner, by emphasising his position, is attempting to carve out a special category for himself which cannot be accepted...Arvind Kejriwal, chief minister of NCT of Delhi is the kingpin and key conspirator of the Delhi excise scam,” ED said.
Responding to the affidavit, an AAP spokesperson accused ED of “manufacturing lies at behest of the Bharatiya Janata Party”.
“Today, nobody in the country has any doubts that ED is a political wing of the BJP... ED gets its directions from the BJP headquarters,” the official said.
The BJP did not respond to requests seeking comment.
In its affidavit, ED stressed that the decision to arrest Kejriwal was made based on substantial evidence and legal grounds, denying the AAP convener’s contention regarding the timing of his arrest — that it was to disable him from campaigning for his party during the Lok Sabha polls — and highlighting the CM’s alleged evasion of investigation for six months during which he skipped nine of the agency’s summonses.
“The arrest of a person...for commission of offence based on material, can never violate concept of free and fair polls... treating a politician differently from an ordinary criminal in a matter of arrest would amount to arbitrary and irrational exercise of power of arrest which would violate the principle of equality enshrined under the Constitution’s Article 14,” ED said.
A differential treatment in favour of a politician who is guilty of offence of money laundering, ED said, would violate “rule of law” and the basic structure of the Constitution.
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Kejriwal had challenged a Delhi High Court judgement that dismissed his plea against arrest by the ED and his subsequent remand in the excise policy case.
Kejriwal, while filing an appeal in the apex court, contended that his arrest after the announcement of the general elections was “motivated by extraneous considerations.”.
On April 9, the High Court dismissed his plea for release from jail and rejected his argument of political vendetta amid the looming Lok Sabha elections.
The High Court had said that Kejriwal’s absence from nine ED summons over six months undermined any claims of special privilege as Chief Minister, suggesting his arrest was an inevitable consequence of his non-cooperation.
Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21 in connection with a money laundering probe relating to alleged irregularities in the now-cancelled Delhi excise policy 2021-22.
ON APRIL 9, DELHI HC DISMISSED THE CM’S PLEA FOR RELEASE FROM JAIL AND REJECTED HIS ARGUMENT OF POLITICAL VENDETTA AMID THE LOOMING LOK SABHA ELECTIONS.