The Rouse Avenue Court of Delhi on Wednesday rejected the petition filed by the Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, requesting an increase in the number of legal consultations with his lawyers from two to five times a week. The court noted that the Chief Minister had utilized the allocated time for purposes other than legal discussions.
Special Judge Kaveri Baweja issued the order, stating that Arvind Kejriwal, the applicant, did not demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction that he had been utilizing the two allowed legal meetings per week solely for discussing ongoing legal matters with his attorneys.
According to the status report submitted by the investigating agency, it was revealed that the applicant had provided specific instructions to be conveyed to the Water Minister through one of his attorneys (whose identity he declined to disclose to the investigating agency) during a legal consultation.
While presenting arguments in the case, ED Counsel Zoheb Hossain, along with Naveen Kumar Matta and Simon Benjamin, contended that the relief requested by the Accused/Applicant through the application under review is inconsistent with the rules and provisions, and therefore cannot be sanctioned. They emphasized that the applicant is not entitled to any preferential treatment.
The court observed that the status report, which was presented to the High Court of Delhi and is under investigation, was also presented before this court during the arguments. It was highlighted that the legal meeting was being misused by the applicant for purposes beyond its intended scope, as evidenced by the aforementioned note. It was argued that the applicant had instructed his lawyer during a legal interview to convey specific directions to the Water Minister.
Advocates Vivek Jain and Mohd Irshad represented Arvind Kejriwal and asserted that he is involved in numerous legal disputes across various states of India, including Punjab, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Goa, Assam, and Delhi. They emphasized that the applicant needs consultations with lawyers to provide suitable instructions for contesting these litigations.
Kejriwal’s legal representatives also argued that due to the considerable number of cases being contested by the applicant and the extensive examination of documents required, longer discussions with counsel are necessary. They therefore requested that the Accused/Applicant be allowed to have five weekly meetings with his lawyers to discuss and strategize various pending litigations effectively before the respective courts spanning multiple jurisdictions.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the legality of Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in an Excise Case on Tuesday, citing his repeated failure to comply with summons over a six-month period as a contributing factor.
The court stated that had Kejriwal participated in the investigation following the issuance of summons under Section 50 of PMLA, he could have provided his account to the investigating agency regarding the collected material.
Kejriwal was apprehended by the ED on March 21 in connection with the excise policy case.
On April 1, the trial court ordered Arvind Kejriwal to judicial custody until April 15. The ED asserted that the Aam Adami Party (AAP) is the primary beneficiary of the proceeds of crime generated in the purported liquor scam.