Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail Argument

Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail Argument: The Delhi High Court is hearing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea to challenge his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a money laundering case related to the Delhi government’s excise policy.

During the hearing, Kejriwal’s lawyer argued that the timing of his arrest meant he would be unable to participate in the upcoming election. In its response, the ED described this as a “bogus statement“. It claimed that the agency discovered the money trail in the case and that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) received kickbacks.

ED calls Questions Over Arrest Timing ‘bogus’

The ED addresses Kejriwal’s argument in court, asserting that the arrest does not reek of a timing issue — but rather, it counters allegations of non-participation in the election and attempts to dismantle the political party before the first vote is cast.

The ED inquired, “What type of argument is this. This is a bogus argument.” It was quote by Live Law as saying, “Suppose a politician commits murder two days before elections. Does this mean he cannot be arrest–ed? Does basic structure come into play?…I commit murder or rape, but I cannot be arrest-ed before the election. What kind of argument is this?“

Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail Argument

Mr Singhvi previously claimed that the ED “does not have any evidence” and that the agency made no attempt to first obtain his statement while an ED team was at the Chief Minister’s residence. “‘Level playing field’ (prior to an election) is more than just a phrase. It is part of a democratic structure’s ‘free and fair elections’. “This case reeks of timing issues.”

“What is the reason for the urgency? I am not discussing politics… I’m talking about the law,” he added, claiming the arrest was intended to “demolish the Aam Aadmi Party before the first vote is cast.”

Also Read: The Great Indian Kapil Show Welcomes Cricket Stars Rohit Sharma and Shreyas Iyer

Mr Singhvi also questioned the ED’s decision to issue multiple summons to the Chief Minister, especially after the AAP leader filed a court challenge to the agency’s call. “…my failure to respond to summons is a nice point of prejudice… it is a red herring,” he said, referring to the nine letters sent by the ED demanding that Mr Kejriwal join the probe.

“Was it possible that Arvind Kejriwal would flee? Did he attempt to persuade any witnesses in one and a half years? Has he refused to be questioned?” The senior advocate inquired. Mr Singhvi also mentioned the series of statements made against the Delhi Chief Minister.