Why aren’t you replying to ED summons? Delhi high court asks CM

The Delhi high court on Wednesday asked chief minister Arvind Kejriwal why he was not appearing before the Enforcement Directorate (ED), after the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor skipped multiple summons issued by the federal agency in connection with alleged irregularities in the Delhi excise policy 2021-22.

“Why don’t you appear on receiving the summons? What is preventing you to not attend the call?” a bench led by justice Suresh Kumar Kait said to senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for the AAP leader.

Kejriwal has skipped eight summons by ED — on November 2 and December 22, 2023, and on January 3, January 18, February 2, February 19, February 27, and March 4 this year — calling them “illegal and politically motivated”.

On March 16, ED issued fresh summons to Kejriwal, asking him to appear before it for questioning on Thursday, following which the AAP leader moved the high court, seeking the quashing of the summons.

Kejriwal, appearing through Singhvi, on Tuesday submitted that he was ready to appear before ED, subject to the court passing an order of no coercive action. He also argued that the summons did not specify if he was being summoned as a witness, suspect, or accused, and that he apprehended that the agency would arrest him in case he appeared before it.

“I’m not avoiding you. I’m not running away from you. I will come myself but I will need protection otherwise. I am not a common criminal. Where can I run? Can anyone have roots in the society more than me? Today if I say that I will come to you anytime you like, anybody, any questionnaire, any virtual or physical or any duration, but I need protection,” Singhvi said.

However, the high court on Wednesday was of the view that Kejriwal would get to know if he is being summoned as a witness, suspect, or an accused only after appearing before ED, adding that the federal agency would not arrest him on the first day of appearance but only inquire.

“Pursuant to summons, if you attend their call, only then you will come to know. We have seen many cases. They don’t arrest on the first or second day. They only inquire and if doubt is there, they record the reasons,” the bench, also comprising justice Manoj Jain, said to Singhvi.

Opposing the maintainability of the plea, ED, appearing through additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju and advocate Zoheb Hussain, argued that no person requires a protection order for appearing before the agency, in lieu of summons. “No ordinary person gets this order of no coercive steps. He’s a privileged person. We’ve been summoning him since November,” Raju said.

The court sought ED’s response on Kejriwal’s plea, following which Raju and Hussain sought for and were granted two weeks’ time to file a reply.

In his plea, Kejriwal had also challenged various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), including section 19 (which deals with the power of arrest), and section 50 (which deals with power of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence).

Kejriwal alleged that the summons appear to be motivated, and were issued at a time when he wanted to perform his due onerous duties as the chief minister and AAP national convenor. “The timing of summons being issued therefore, is aimed to prevent a political opponent like the petitioner from campaigning and clearly to overawe, threaten and intimidate a political opponent by issuance of frivolous summons in the middle of election,” read the plea.