‘If my memory is weak, will it be a reason for arrest’, Kejriwal said on ED’s action in the court
The case of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was arrested in the money laundering case of alleged scam in Delhi Excise Policy, was heard in the High Court today on Wednesday (27 March). The trial court’s order to send Arvind Kejriwal to ED custody till March 28 has been challenged in the Delhi High Court.
Kejriwal’s lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, while presenting the case, said, “My role in the entire case is not clear. ED says that I did not cooperate. The agency constantly misuses the word ‘non-cooperation’. “Can’t be forced to do so. If I say that I don’t remember anything. My memory is weak, will that become a basis for arrest?”
He further said, “Was my arrest necessary just before the elections? I was not going to run away anywhere. I said give me questions. Offered to appear through video conferencing. Now after arresting them they say I am tampering with the evidence. “Could have. If that’s so, then couldn’t I have done it earlier. In fact, there was no need for arrest.”
‘Kejriwal’s arrest is against the Constitution’
Senior lawyer Singhvi said that this arrest is against the constitution. This action is against the fundamental structure. A CM was arrested just before the elections. Free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The arrest took place after the Model Code of Conduct came into force. Stopped from campaigning. A CM can also be arrested but the question is about the timing of that arrest.
‘On what issue do you want to be cross-examined?’
The High Court judge said, “I want to understand what is being argued. In the morning I had said that a notice will be issued on the main matter (challenge to arrest) and we will have to hear it in detail. Then it was said that the remand was ending tomorrow. You have to cross-examine on that issue.”
Kejriwal’s lawyer Singhvi said that the result of both the things would be only one thing – release me on interim bail today itself. Both arrest and remand are wrong. Then the judge said that but I will have to listen to the other side also.
‘ED took desired statements’
While cross-examining in the court, Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, “PMLA Section 50 was not followed. The Arnesh Kumar decision of the Supreme Court forbids arrest without proper reason during investigation. I think this principle applies 10 thousand times more to a sitting CM. Proceeds of crime are not being paid attention to. The arrest was made without recording the statement. A sitting CM has been arrested for influencing the elections. In this way democracy is being hurt.”
He further said, “Having the power to arrest cannot mean arresting at all. This should happen only when it is really needed. Whether the requirements of PMLA section 19 (arrest) were followed or the arrest was made without them. There was no statement from anyone against me. One accused said things according to ED, his bail was not opposed. “The ED took the statements it wanted just to arrest one person.”
