New Delhi, Mar 27 (UNI) The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and asked the central agency to file its reply by April 3 on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea that his arrest by ED should be declared illegal, and all proceedings related to it be quashed.

A single judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said, “ This Court remains conscious of the fact that to conclude as to whether the petitioner herein is entitled to immediate release or not, this Court will necessarily have to decide the issues after hearing the other side.
The court said since the questions raised by the petitioner are the edifice of arguments for his immediate release, it would be appropriate to issue a notice of the main writ petition as well as the application for grant of interim relief, returnable on April 03, 2024, the court said.

Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, accepted the notice on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement.
The court further directed the ED to ensure that replies are filed to the main petition as well as the application for interim release of the petitioner by April 2. The anti-money laundering agency was also asked to ensure that the copies of the replies in digitised form as well as hard copy be provided to the counsel for the petitioner.
The application as well as the main petition will be taken up for final disposal on April 03. No adjournment shall be granted on the said date, the court said.


Kejriwal in his petition before the Delhi High Court contented that his arrest was "arbitrary and unconstitutional" and should be set aside. Kejriwal contended the entire proceedings relating to it including the arrest order on March 21, 2024, should be quasehd as it represented "a gross and blatant abuse of the process of law as well as a perversion of power and authority", infringing on the petitioner’s fundamental rights as guaranteed under articles 14, 19, 21 and 22(1) & (2) of the Constitution of India;

Kejriwal also contended the quashing of the March 22, 2024 order passed by the Special Judge (PMLA) whereby, he has been remanded to the ED custody in a patently routine and mechanical manner and, therefore, such untenable remand orders cannot cure the constitutional infirmities as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22(1) & (2) of the Constitution of India.
Along with the main petition, Kejriwal also filed an application for grant of interim relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking that he be released from custody immediately as any further incarceration would be anathema to law and gravely detrimental to the cause of justice.

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal argued that there is no requirement for issuance of notice to the ED, either of the main petition or on the interim application since the grounds of arrest as well as the order of Special Judge (PC Act Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi on March 22 by which Kejriwal was remanded to the ED custody are on record and the same clearly reflect the stand of the Directorate of Enforcement as far as the present petitioner and his arrest is concerned, dr Singhvi said.

Singhvii argued that the grounds of arrest are frozen and neither the plea taken by the Directorate of Enforcement before the trial court can change, nor there can be any addition to the grounds or arguments addressed before the Trial Court by the Directorate of Enforcement, which has to be brought before this Court in the form of a formal reply.

Dr Singhvi also argued that it is a delaying tactic which is reflective of malicious intent on the part of the Directorate of Enforcement to stall or delay any order being passed on the release of the petitioner herein.

He also stated that the court may decide the petition and the application either way, based on his petition and arguments, and the previous stand taken by the Directorate of Enforcement before the trial court at the time of remand. Thus, he insisted that there is no need for a reply to be filed by the Directorate of Enforcement.

On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General (‘ASG’) S.V. Raju, appearing on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement, opposed Kejriwal’s plea, saying, “ it is the right of the Directorate of Enforcement to file a reply and to be heard before passing any order.”
The ASG also argued that he cannot be denied an opportunity to file a reply nor the petitioner can decide whether the Directorate of Enforcement has to place before the Court any new fact or not.

He, therefore, prayed that he be given time to file a reply to the main petition as well as the application for a grant of interim relief.

ASG also argued that one of the prayers sought in the main petition and the prayer in the application seeking interim relief are identical. both petitions seek immediate release of the petitioner, The ASG said.
The court after hearing arguments from both parties issued notice to the ED and asked them to appear in the court on April 3, 2024, for further arguments.
The application as well as the main petition will be taken up for final disposal on April 3. UNI SNG AKS SSP