The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up the Enforcement Directorate (ED), asking it about the timing of the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the Delhi Excise Policy scam case just before the Lok Sabha elections of 2024.
The Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta posed a slew of questions to the ED, directing the federal agency to answer the same on the next date of hearing on May 3.
The Bench asked ED that without there being adjudicatory proceeding, how can it have criminal proceedings initiated in terms of what has been held in Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India and Vijay Madanlal vs Union of India. It said there were no proceedings of attachment in this case so far, and if there were, then the ED was directed to show the involvement of the petitioner in the same.
It said there were findings in favour and against former Delhi Minister Manish Sisodia. The Court asked ED to explain where did the Kejriwal case lie?
It said the national agency thought that the threshold of Section 19 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which casts onus on prosecution and not on accused was fairly high and thus asking for regular bail did not happen as they were confronted with Section 45 and the onus shifted on them.
It asked as to how should it interpret this? Should the Court make the threshold much higher and ensure that the standard was the same to find the person who was guilty?
Regarding the time gap between the initiation of proceedings and the action of arrest, it mentioned Section 8, in which there was a limit of 365 days. Though they were in bail matters, the other option was to not arrest as the life and liberty of the accused were important, it added.
Regarding the timing of the arrest which was just before the general elections, it noted that in Vijay Madanlal, the Apex Court had upheld the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
However, that judgment was under review. Section 19 of PMLA gave the ED officers the power to arrest persons if there was ‘reason to believe’ that an offence has been committed. Section 45 contained the grounds for granting bail in PMLA offences.
In Pankaj Bansal, the Apex Court held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must supply in writing the grounds of arrest to persons accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The top court of the country was apprised on Tuesday that there was no proof of Kejriwal’s direct involvement in the Delhi Excise Policy case being probed by the ED.