The Supreme Court is set to deliver its verdict today on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case linked to the alleged excise policy scam.
According to the cause list of July 12 uploaded on the apex court's website, a Bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna will pronounce the judgment. On May 17, the Bench, also comprising Justice Dipankar Datta, had reserved its verdict on Kejriwal's plea.
The apex court had, on April 15, sought a response from the ED on Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest in the money laundering case. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief has challenged the top court's April 9 order, in which the Delhi High Court upheld his arrest, deeming it lawful and necessary after he had skipped repeated summonses and refused to join the investigation.
Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21 in connection with the money laundering case. On April 9, the Delhi High Court upheld his arrest, and on April 15, the Supreme Court sought a response from the ED on Kejriwal's plea. The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on May 17.
On June 20, Kejriwal was granted bail by a trial court in Delhi on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh. However, the Delhi High Court imposed an interim stay on the trial court's bail order on June 21, and on June 25, it passed a detailed order staying the trial court order. The ED had contended that the trial court's order granting bail to Kejriwal was "perverse", "one-sided", and "wrong-sided", with findings based on irrelevant facts.
Adding to the complexity of the case, Kejriwal was also arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on June 26 in connection with the corruption case related to the alleged excise policy scam.
The case pertains to alleged corruption and money laundering in the formulation and execution of the Delhi government's excise policy for 2021-22, which has since been scrapped.
The Supreme Court's decision today will be crucial in determining the legal standing of Kejriwal's arrest and the subsequent proceedings in this high-profile case.
