On Monday, the Supreme Court questioned Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s argument against his detention in the Delhi liquor policy case, even though he declined to provide a statement to the Enforcement Directorate. Judge Sanjiv Khanna, one of the two judges hearing the case, stated, “If you do not go for recording of Section 50 statements, you cannot take the defence that his statement was not recorded.”
The authority of ED officials to issue summonses and require the production of documents, proof, and other items is covered in Section 50 of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act).
Mr. Kejriwal has claimed in his suit that both his arrest and his detention are unlawful. Its timing—prior to the general elections—made its political motivation obvious. “The attempt is to decimate a political party and topple an elected government of the NCT of Delhi,” the statement added.
His attorney, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, said the court during the Monday hearing that an arrest may only be made based on proof of guilt, “not mere suspicion.” He had stated, “This is also the threshold in Section 45 PMLA (law against money laundering),” noting that the Delhi Chief Minister’s statement had not been recoded by the investigative agency.
“By claiming that his remarks made in accordance with Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were not recorded, are you not contradicting yourself? “You fail to show up when summoned to record statements under Section 50 and then claim it wasn’t recorded,” the bench questioned, raising doubts about the investigating officer’s options if Mr. Kejriwal ignored repeated summonses.
“Non-recording of Section 50 statements is not a defence to arrest me for reasons of believing there is guilt,” Mr Singhvi replied. “I’m arguing that further evidence does not prove my guilt either. To make an arrest, the ED visited my home. Then, why is it that ED is unable to record my statement at my house under Section 50?” he said.
