Delhi High Court on Tuesday (9 April) declared that Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the liquor policy case is valid as the agency was able to place “enough material” against him.

Kejriwal had challenged his arrest and said that it was in violation of section 19 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The arguments were heard on 3 April and the verdict was reserved.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi is representing Kejriwal and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju is representing ED in the case. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma pronounced his judgment today. Key highlights here:

1. Charges: The court acknowledged that the material collected by ED reveals that Kejriwal conspired and was involved in formulation of liquor excise policy and used proceeds of crime.

“He is also allegedly involved in personal capacity in formulation of policy and demanding kickbacks and secondly in the capacity of national convenor of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP),” the court said.

2. No doubt on approvers: The court said that doubting grant of pardon to approvers (Magunta Reddy and Raghav Magunta) amounts to casting aspersions on judicial process as the law of approver is more than 100 years old.

3. Court’s jurisdiction: “Who gives tickets for contesting election or who purchases electoral bonds is not the concern of the court,” the HC said on Singhvi’s argument that Magunta Reddy got a Lok Sabha ticket.

The order said that the court can neither step into shoes of trial court to conduct mini trial in writ jurisdiction, nor direct the ED to conduct investigation as per Kejriwal’s convenience.

4. Timing: On Kejriwal’s allegation that his arrest just before Lok Sabha elections is politically motivated, the court said that it has to examine his arrest and remand as per law irrespective of timing of elections.

“Kejriwal’s challenge to timing of arrest before General elections in absence of any mala fide on part of ED not sustainable,” court said targeting Kejriwal to not join the investigation in time.

5. Need of arrest: The court noted that the ED had enough material to arrest Kejriwal. Moreover, his non joining of investigation caused delay and also impacted those in judicial custody.

6. Politics v/s judiciary: “Judges are bound by law and not by politics. Judgments are written by legal principles and not political affiliations. Political considerations can’t be brought before court of law,” the order said.

The court observed that the matter is not about a conflict between central government and Kejriwal, but between Kejriwal and ED and hence it is “concerned with constitutional morality and not political morality.”

7. Material against Kejriwal: The court said that the material included statements of hawala dealers, a member of AAP etc. while not disclosing names in the judgment, LiveLaw reported.

The court observed that the chain regarding the money sent for Goa elections is complete as statements of approvers and AAP candidate stating that he was given money prove this.

8. Final judgment: The court held that arrest of Kejriwal was not in contravention of section concerned or the case of Pankaj Bansal and hence his remand can’t be termed as illegal.

Kejriwal’s plea challenging ED arrest was dismissed. The court also upheld the subsequent remand orders, including the one remanding Kejriwal to judicial custody till 15 April.