GUWAHATI: Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, has raised serious allegations against the Enforcement Directorate (ED), arguing that the agency is withholding evidence that could exculpate Kejriwal in the ongoing Delhi Liquor Policy case. Singhvi's accusations were presented during a hearing on Tuesday, April 30, before a Supreme Court Bench consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta.
Singhvi's primary contention was that the ED concealed critical witness statements that did not implicate Kejriwal and recorded some statements under questionable circumstances. He argued that these omissions and manipulations were part of a broader attempt to build a case against the Delhi Chief Minister without sufficient grounds.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
Singhvi dissected the ED's reliance on statements from five key witnesses—Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy (MSR), MSR's son Magunta Raghava Reddy, P. Sarath Chandra Reddy, Buchi Babu, and C. Arvind—claiming that the agency ignored or suppressed statements that did not implicate Kejriwal. He presented detailed accounts of the statements, pointing out inconsistencies and suggesting that some witnesses were coerced into making statements against Kejriwal.
Singhvi highlighted that MSR, a former Member of Parliament, initially did not implicate Kejriwal, but later made an inculpatory statement after his son's bail was granted, following an extended period of incarceration. He also pointed out that Sarath Reddy made 11 statements, 9 of which were exculpatory, but these were not presented by the ED. Singhvi alleged that these witnesses were coerced or induced into giving statements against Kejriwal.
Singhvi's arguments questioned the ED's compliance with procedural requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He argued that the agency failed to establish a clear link between Kejriwal and the alleged proceeds of crime, emphasising that the stringent safeguards under PMLA are designed to prevent vexatious arrests. Singhvi contended that the statements relied upon by the ED were not sufficient to justify an arrest under PMLA's strict standards.
The Supreme Court Bench also expressed scepticism about the ED's approach. Justice Khanna remarked that the agency's investigation should be based on objective criteria and suggested that there could be a failure if material in possession is ignored. Additionally, the bench posed several questions to the ED's counsel, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, seeking clarity on various aspects of the case.
ALSO READ: IIT Guwahati Develops Speech Technology For Speech-Impaired Individuals
The Supreme Court's Bench highlighted the importance of maintaining fairness in the prosecution process. Justice Khanna suggested that criminal proceedings under PMLA should not be standalone and should be based on proper attachment of the alleged proceeds of crime. Singhvi's arguments stressed that the ED's case against Kejriwal lacked the necessary evidence and legal grounding, urging the court to consider the broader context and potential coercion of witnesses.
The court directed ASG Raju to respond to specific queries on the next hearing date, scheduled for Friday. The questions focused on the timeline of events, the ED's basis for the charges, and the agency's approach to witness statements.
