The court granted two weeks to the Enforcement Directorate to file its reply (File)
The Delhi High Court asked Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal why he skipped the Enforcement Directorate's summons for questioning in a money-laundering case linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam, as it sought the agency's stand on the AAP leader's plea challenging the summonses against him.
"Why don't you appear on receiving the summonses? What is preventing you from attending?" a bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait said.
The bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Jain, noted that the first summons was issued in October last year and said that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader is a citizen of India before anything else.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Arvind Kejriwal, said his client would appear before the ED but must be protected from coercive action because of the agency's "clear intent" to arrest him with elections around the corner.
Mr Kejriwal has moved the court in the wake of the latest summons - the ninth issued by the ED - asking him to appear before it on March 21.
The AAP leader has repeatedly refused to appear before the agency, calling the summonses illegal.
The court said arrest on the "first or second day" is not the "normal practice" as an investigating agency first records the reasons to do so, if grounds are made out.
Citing the arrests of AAP leaders Sanjay Singh and Manish Sisodia in the case, the senior lawyer claimed that a "new style" of functioning is now in place.
"I will appear. I will answer the questionnaire, but protection is required. I am not avoiding it. I am not running away from you. I will come myself but I need protection. No coercive steps," Mr Singhvi said.
"I am not a common criminal. Where can I run? Can anyone have roots in the society more than me?" he asked the bench.
Mr Singhvi also contended that the ED asked Mr Kejriwal to appear before it, without clarifying if he is an accused, a suspect, or a witness in the case.
The court said he would get to know his status if he appeared pursuant to the summonses and asked why he hasn't taken appropriate legal action if he is anticipating arrest.
"You received the first summons on October 30. We have seen your reply and you have given several reasons, including that Diwali festivities were around the corner. And now, we are on to the next festival, elections. So this would go on," the court said.
"Before anything else, you are a citizen of the country, the summons is by name," it added.
The ED said the petition of the AAP national convenor, which also challenges certain provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), was not maintainable and opposed the issuance of a formal notice.
The bench granted two weeks to the agency to file its reply.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, said the constitutional validity of PMLA provisions has been settled by the Supreme Court and there cannot be any stay when there is a presumption with respect to such validity.
Mr Singhvi said the petition raises several issues, including whether a political party is covered under the anti-money laundering law.
In the petition, Mr Kejriwal has contended that an arbitrary procedure under the PMLA is being employed to create a non-level playing field for the upcoming Lok Sabha polls to "skew the electoral process in favour of the ruling party at the Centre".
The petition says Mr Kejriwal is a "vocal critic" of the ruling party, an opposition leader, and a partner in the INDIA bloc, and the ED, being under the Centre's control, has been "weaponised".
"The impugned summonses dated 26.02.2024 and 16.03.2024 were sent to the petitioner with an oblique motive to arrest the petitioner. That the investigation in the present matter is going on since 22.08.2022 i.e. the last one-and-a-half years, and after investigation, as many as six prosecution complaints with thousands of documents stand filed.
"All necessary documents/information are already in possession of the respondent and summoning the petitioner 'in person' is therefore a ploy to illegally arrest the petitioner and the present matter is a clear case of malice," the petition says.
Besides seeking to declare sections 19, 45, and 50 of the PMLA, which deal with arrest, questioning, and grant of bail, as unconstitutional, the petition also prays for quashing and setting aside all proceedings, including the summonses, against Mr Kejriwal in the capacity of the national convenor of a political party or as the Chief Minister or in any other capacity in the ED case.
The case pertains to alleged corruption and money laundering in formulating and executing the Delhi government's excise policy for 2021-22, which was later scrapped.
AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh are in judicial custody in the case.
Arvind Kejriwal's name has been mentioned several times in the ED's chargesheets. The agency alleged that the accused were in touch with Mr Kejriwal to draft the excise policy that resulted in undue benefits for them, in return for which they paid kickbacks to the AAP.
A Delhi court granted bail to Mr Kejriwal on Saturday on two complaints filed by the ED against him for skipping six of the previous eight summonses in the money-laundering case.
The matter will next be heard on April 22.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)