On Monday, a Delhi court ordered Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to remain in judicial custody until April 15 in connection with the money laundering case linked to the alleged liquor policy scam. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had requested 15 days of judicial custody for Kejriwal, citing his uncooperative behavior. Following the conclusion of his custody with the Enforcement Directorate, Kejriwal was presented before Special Judge Kaveri Baweja.
Kejriwal, who had been arrested by the probe agency in connection with the alleged liquor policy scam, appeared before the Rouse Avenue court as his custody ended. The ED had sought a seven-day extension of his custody to further interrogate the Delhi CM. However, on March 28, the court extended Kejriwal’s custody with the ED until April 1.
Despite being in jail, Kejriwal has continued to govern Delhi through his wife Sunita Kejriwal, who has been conveying his orders to the cabinet. Sunita also took part in the ‘Loktantra Bachao’ rally organized by the Opposition INDIA bloc, where she hailed Kejriwal as a ‘freedom fighter’. Various opposition leaders at the rally also demanded the release of Kejriwal and former Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren, who was arrested by the ED in January.
Kejriwal, the national convener of AAP, was arrested on March 21 and subsequently remanded to the Enforcement Directorate’s custody by a Delhi court. He faces allegations of direct involvement in a conspiracy related to the formulation of the excise policy favoring specific individuals. Following the expiration of his initial custody on March 28, Kejriwal’s custody was extended for four more days until April 1 by a local court. He has also approached the Delhi High Court, claiming a violation of his fundamental rights by the ED.
The case concerns alleged irregularities and money laundering in the framing and implementation of the Delhi excise policy of 2022, which was later annulled.
In its arguments before the court, the ED has alleged that Kejriwal is the main conspirator and key figure in soliciting kickbacks from businessmen, asserting his direct involvement in shaping the Excise policy.
Comments 2