Share :
Introduction
In the complex realm of law and governance, instances frequently occur that draw public attention because of their consequences for politics, governance, or individual rights. One such case is ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, which has significant consequences in the realm of Indian politics and law. The Delhi High Court on 09-04-2024 dismissed Delhi Chief Minister’s plea against his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”), saying that the investigative agency was in possession of enough material which had led them to arrest him.
BACKGROUND
A petition was filed by Delhi’s CM under Article 226 and 227 read with section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (”CrPC”) challenging the arrest of the petitioner by Directorate of Enforcement on the ground that the arrest was in violation of Section 19 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). It has been prayed that the arrest order dated 21-03-2024 and the proceedings pursuant thereto be declared illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional along with the order vide which the petitioner was remanded to custody of ED be also quashed on the grounds of it being passed in a mechanical and patently manner.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The petitioner has approached the court seeking relief under this article, which deals with the power of High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”): The petitioner has also invoked this section, which pertains to the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary for preventing abuse of the process of any court or for securing the ends of justice.
- Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22(1) & (2) of the Constitution of India: These constitutional articles are referenced in the petition to argue violations of fundamental rights due to the arrest and remand orders issued by the Enforcement Directorate.
- Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (“PMLA”): The validity of this section is questioned in relation to the arrest and remand of the petitioner, raising concerns about its application and impact on constitutional rights.
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
The case revolves around the legality and procedural fairness of the investigation conducted by the ED against Delhi’s CM. Petitioner’s legal team argued that the investigation was politically motivated and lacked substantial evidence. They contended that the ED was being used as a tool to target political opponents, thereby violating petitioner’s rights.
Furthermore, Petitioner’s defence team raised concerns about procedural irregularities during the investigation process. They alleged that Delhi’s CM was not provided with adequate opportunities to present his case and challenge the evidence presented against him. Additionally, questions were raised about the authenticity and admissibility of the evidence collected by the ED.
On the other hand, the ED defended its actions, asserting that the investigation was conducted in accordance with the law and was based on credible evidence. They argued that the ED was merely fulfilling its duty to investigate allegations of financial misconduct and money laundering, irrespective of the political affiliations of the individuals involved.
CONCLUSION
The Court noted that the petitioner was indeed provided with the grounds of arrest in writing, consisting of 28 pages, at the time of their arrest. Additionally, the arrest order was in the prescribed format and explicitly stated the reasons for the arrest, as required. Furthermore, the ED forwarded the necessary material to the Adjudicating Authority of PMLA in compliance with Section 19(2) of PMLA.
Based on the material collected, including witness statements, digital evidence, and the petitioner’s conduct of failing to join the investigation despite multiple summons, the court found prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s involvement in money laundering offenses. Therefore, the Court concluded that the arrest of the petitioner was justified and conducted in compliance with the provisions of PMLA and the precedent set by the Supreme Court.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
