Achi news desk-
GUWAHATI: Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, has leveled serious allegations against the Enforcement Directorate (ED), alleging that the agency is withholding evidence that could disqualify Kejriwal in the ongoing Delhi liquor policy case. Singhvi’s allegations were presented during a hearing on Tuesday, April 30, before a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Khanna and Dipankar Datta.
Singhvi’s main contention was that the ED withheld critical witness statements that did not implicate Kejriwal and recorded some statements under dubious circumstances. He alleged that these omissions and manipulations were part of a wider 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 the statements of five key witnesses – Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy (MSR), MSR’s son Magunta Raghava Reddy, P. Sarath Chandra Reddy, Buchi Babu and S. Arvind – alleging that the agency ignored or suppressed statements not to implicate Kejriwal. He presented detailed accounts of the statements, pointed out inconsistencies and suggested that some witnesses had been coerced into making statements against Kejriwal.
Singhvi stressed that MSR, a former MP, initially did not appreciate Kejriwal, but later made an incriminating statement after his son’s bail was granted, following a lengthy jail term. He also pointed out that Sarath Reddy had made 11 statements, 9 of which were exculpatory, but these were not produced by the ED. Singhvi alleged that these witnesses were coerced or coerced into giving statements against Kejriwal.
Singhvi’s arguments questioned the ED’s compliance with the procedural requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He argued that the agency had failed to establish a clear link between Kejriwal and the alleged proceeds of crime, stressing that the strict safeguards under PMLA were meant to prevent nuisance arrests. Singhvi argued that the statements relied upon by the ED were not sufficient to warrant arrest under the strict standards of PMLA.
The Supreme Court bench also expressed skepticism about ED’s approach. Judge Khanna noted that the agency’s investigation should be based on objective criteria and suggested that there could be failure if the material in its possession is ignored. In addition, the commission submitted several questions to the ED’s legal counsel, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, seeking clarification on the various aspects of the case.
Also Read: IIT Guwahati develops speech technology for speech impaired people
The Supreme Court bench emphasized the importance of maintaining fairness in the prosecution process. Justice Khanna suggested that criminal proceedings under PMLA should not be independent and should be based on proper aggregation of the alleged proceeds of crime. Singhvi’s arguments highlighted that the ED’s case against Kejriwal lacked the necessary evidence and legal basis, prompting the court to consider the wider context and the potential coercion of witnesses.
The court directed ASG Raju to reply to specific questions on the next date of hearing, scheduled for Friday. Questions focused on the timeline of events, the ED’s basis for charges and the agency’s approach to witness statements.
