NEW DELHI: Delhi HC on Wednesday didn’t grant any immediate relief to CM Arvind Kejriwal, who is in ED custody. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to give interim relief to the CM without waiting for the stand of ED. She posted the matter for a final decision on April 3.
The judge said that any finding on whether Kejriwal is entitled to immediate release or not “will necessarily” lead it to “decide the issues raised in the main petition”.
She pointed out that the petition “raises several issues of legality and validity regarding the arrest and remand” and also asks if the arrest may be politically motivated and mala fide.
ED’s Reply Crucial To Case, Says HC
The HC said it can’t “presume” that ED will have no reply to file and that its reply was “essential and crucial to decide the present case”.
“More so, since there may be some additional material in the possession of the investigating agency, collected during the custodial interrogation of the petitioner herein, which they may wish to place before this court, which may be crucial to decide the present case. Such material may also be crucial for the petitioner himself,” the judge observed, issuing a notice to ED but giving a short date of April 3 for the next hearing.
It said the court will on the next date not give any adjournment and decide the AAP leader’s petition challenging his arrest and the subsequent remand in ED’s custody.
“The Directorate of Enforcement will ensure that replies are filed to the main petition as well as the application for interim release of the petitioner by 02.04.2024 and copies of the same are provided in digitized form as well as hard copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner,” ordered the court adding that while hearing and deciding a case, it was “duty-bound to hear both sides fairly, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice”.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, contended the arrest of a sitting chief minister on the cusp of elections was against the basic structure of Constitution. “Object of the arrest was not to find material but to disable me and my party. My prayer is release me now,” he pleaded.
The senior lawyer maintained that the CM’s arrest was a “matter where democracy itself is involved, basic structure and level playing field is involved. A day is far too long when the arrest is illegal. The ED is achieving its nefarious objective by seeking more time.” Opposing ED’s argument that it needed time to respond, Singhvi alleged that the request to file a response was motivated and a delaying tactic. He said they were challenging the foundation of the arrest and there were several “glaring issues” that needed immediate decision by the high court either way.
Additional solicitor general S V Raju, appearing for the probe agency, said the “bulky” petition was served upon them only on Tuesday and that time should be given to bring their stand on record. For interim relief as well, appropriate time should be given to respond, he submitted, saying that his legal team kept asking for a copy of the petition but it was not provided in time.
On Friday, the trial court had remanded Kejriwal in ED’s custody till March 28 “for his detailed and sustained interrogation”.
ED arrested Kejriwal hours after the high court refused to grant him protection from coercive action by the agency.
The judge said that any finding on whether Kejriwal is entitled to immediate release or not “will necessarily” lead it to “decide the issues raised in the main petition”.
She pointed out that the petition “raises several issues of legality and validity regarding the arrest and remand” and also asks if the arrest may be politically motivated and mala fide.
ED’s Reply Crucial To Case, Says HC
The HC said it can’t “presume” that ED will have no reply to file and that its reply was “essential and crucial to decide the present case”.
“More so, since there may be some additional material in the possession of the investigating agency, collected during the custodial interrogation of the petitioner herein, which they may wish to place before this court, which may be crucial to decide the present case. Such material may also be crucial for the petitioner himself,” the judge observed, issuing a notice to ED but giving a short date of April 3 for the next hearing.
It said the court will on the next date not give any adjournment and decide the AAP leader’s petition challenging his arrest and the subsequent remand in ED’s custody.
“The Directorate of Enforcement will ensure that replies are filed to the main petition as well as the application for interim release of the petitioner by 02.04.2024 and copies of the same are provided in digitized form as well as hard copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner,” ordered the court adding that while hearing and deciding a case, it was “duty-bound to hear both sides fairly, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice”.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, contended the arrest of a sitting chief minister on the cusp of elections was against the basic structure of Constitution. “Object of the arrest was not to find material but to disable me and my party. My prayer is release me now,” he pleaded.
The senior lawyer maintained that the CM’s arrest was a “matter where democracy itself is involved, basic structure and level playing field is involved. A day is far too long when the arrest is illegal. The ED is achieving its nefarious objective by seeking more time.” Opposing ED’s argument that it needed time to respond, Singhvi alleged that the request to file a response was motivated and a delaying tactic. He said they were challenging the foundation of the arrest and there were several “glaring issues” that needed immediate decision by the high court either way.
Additional solicitor general S V Raju, appearing for the probe agency, said the “bulky” petition was served upon them only on Tuesday and that time should be given to bring their stand on record. For interim relief as well, appropriate time should be given to respond, he submitted, saying that his legal team kept asking for a copy of the petition but it was not provided in time.
On Friday, the trial court had remanded Kejriwal in ED’s custody till March 28 “for his detailed and sustained interrogation”.
ED arrested Kejriwal hours after the high court refused to grant him protection from coercive action by the agency.
