New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said its order granting interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was very clear, and it had not made "any exception to anybody".
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta refused to consider claims and counters of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Kejriwal's lawyer on statements made related to the interim bail to the Aam Aadmi Party national convenor.
"We have not made any exception for anybody, we said in our order what we felt was justified," the bench said, adding that critical analysis of the judgment is "welcome".
The apex court's remarks came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected to Kejriwal’s purported statement in a poll rally that if people would vote for him, then he would not have to go to jail again.
"It is his assumption, we cannot say anything," the bench told Mehta.
Senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, said: “I did not think he would say this, and I will file an affidavit, and he was alleging malafide against the government…I will file an affidavit about the top minister of this government…. ”.
Justice Khanna said: “As far critical analysis of the judgment…you may have different viewpoints; we have no difficulty with that. Our order is very clear, we have fixed a timeline that on so-and-so date, he is on bail and on the date he has to surrender (on June 2, Kejriwal will have to surrender). That is the order of the apex court. If rule of law is to be governed, it will be governed by that”.
“Our order is very clear. We specifically said that we are not making an exception to anybody. What we felt was justified, we passed that order”, said Justice Khanna. Mehta said Kejriwal should not have said that, and it is slapping the institution and “I take an exception”. The bench said, "let us confine to the legal issues".
During the day-long hearing, the Enforcement Directorate told the bench that it will soon file a prosecution complaint against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in a money laundering case related to the alleged excise policy scam.
Additional solicitor general SV Raju, also representing the ED, said, “We are proposing to file the prosecution complaint (charge sheet) against Arvind Kejriwal and AAP. We will do it shortly. It is in the pipeline." The ED said that Kejriwal had demanded Rs 100 crore money, which he received, and it was used for AAP's campaign in Goa elections. The ED also raised the objection regarding the maintainability of the Kejriwal’s plea.
The Delhi chief minister was arrested on March 21 in the case. On May 10, the apex court granted interim bail to Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal till June 1, 2024, allowing him to campaign for his party in the ongoing Lok Sabha election. The apex court had said Kejriwal will have to surrender on June 2.
The bench posed a query to the ED's counsel that suppose a witness denies his earlier statement and in a section 164 statement tells magistrate that he did not ask for bribe, then the investigating officer can say that he is not relying on the section 164 statement. Raju said it is a hypothetical thing. “Today, if there is a statement that he has done this criminal act, you want to get a confession recorded by the magistrate and before the magistrate (the witness) takes a volte-face….in that you have reasons to believe that he is guilty of the offence…”, Justice Datta queried.
Raju said that we may not arrest that person. Justice Datta said the agency then has good reason to arrest that person and in this case the agency will have to touch upon the section 164 statement that you do not believe it. Raju said it will not vitiate the arrest. Justice Datta said the other side can cite that the witness has backtracked on his statement.
The bench said it will have to look into the material, which was available, when the central agency arrested Kejriwal. The bench said suppose the officer has material which shows that the accused is not involved in this and the officer has to be fair and he is to balance and if the officer ignored it and says he believes that there is a ground of arrest going by only material after exclusion. “Then shouldn't the court go into this?," the bench queried Raju.
Justice Khanna told Raju, “When you arrest a person the material should be sufficient, so you cannot rely on material post the arrest. You can rely on the material for filing of the complaint…you can’t rely on other things”. Raju replied that the ED has enough material against Kejriwal.
When ED’s counsel cited a statement of an approver in the case, the bench clarified that an approver’s statement will be tested on another parameter, when compared to a witness statement and “one corroboration is must and secondly he is accepting his guilt and he is getting benefit…”. Raju insisted that the ED is not only relying on approver’s statement against Kejriwal, but there are also other statements also against the Delhi chief minister.
Mehta argued that Section 19 Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) has certain inbuilt safeguards against arbitrary arrests, and pointed out that it can be carried out only after the satisfaction by a higher official based on reasons recorded in writing. Mehta stressed that the violation of the conditions for arrest under Section 19 of PMLA can be examined only by the trial court.
The bench said that, "If arrest is affecting Section 19, are you saying that no plea under Article 226 lies? Can you take it that far?” "If there is a violation of section 19 conditions, obviously courts can interfere. Either remand court or the high court…," said the bench.
Mehta argued that in the present proceedings, Kejriwal is calling upon the court to conduct a "mini-trial" over the subjective satisfaction of the investigating officer in connection with his arrest.
However, the bench said that the AAP leader did not by-pass procedure and in fact approached the trial court first and also when he approached the apex court in the first instance, after his arrest, the doors were not opened for him. The hearing in the matter will continue on Friday.
