The article follows the events described in the author’s previous works being (1) Enforcement Directorate vs. Arvind Kejriwal and (2) PMLA - Delhi Liquor Policy Case. The current article stems from subsequent developments and may be read as an independent piece.
BACKGROUND
On 30-Mar-2026, the ED
moved to the Delhi High Court challenging the 22-Jan-2026 order of the
Rouse Avenue District Court (Trial Court).
As per the original order, the
ED had made the allegation that Arvind Kejriwal had deliberately skipped the
summons sent by the ED in respect of the investigation in the Delhi Liquor
Policy Case. The case had lasted for 22 months 16 days before the trial court finally
acquitting Arvind Kejriwal vide a 51-page order. It may be noted that this case
was not the trial of the actual money laundering offence, but only
restricted to the point of skipping the summons of the ED.
During these 22 months 16 days,
Arvind Kejriwal had been arrested, interrogated, arrested again, bailed,
interrogated again, bailed again, and discharged in the Delhi Liquor Policy Scam
Case.
Now the ED, in its wisdom, has
challenged the acquittal of Kejriwal with respect to a summons he did not
attend, in a case where the custodial interrogation is over, investigation is
already complete, the accused has served jail-time, and has been discharged,
with scathing remarks on the conduct of the ED. The remarks of the Trial Court
have since been stayed
by the Delhi High Court. The ED still believes that it was wrong of the
Trial Court to acquit Arvind Kejriwal for not attending the summons.
RATIONALE
The purpose of a summons is to
question a witness or an accused. The ED has already availed the opportunity of
interrogating
Kejriwal in custody after
arresting him in March 2024. One of the grounds
of arrest was also the skipping of the said summons. However, the ED
still wants its pound of flesh against Kejriwal for skipping the summons.
But that is not the entire
concern here. The non-attendance of a summons is an offence under section 174 of the erstwhile IPC
[section 208 of the BNS]. The punishment for such non-attendance is a maximum
of one month of imprisonment, or fine of Rs. 500, or both. By any reasonable
stretch of imagination, Arvind Kejriwal has already served such punishment.
However, the sheer expense of the appearance of senior counsels before the High
Court now shall be borne by the taxpayers of India. For a case which shall
serve no purpose even if the ED were to somehow win in its obstinate grudge
against Arvind Kejriwal.
The natural question arises,
why are the taxpayers of the country paying for the punishment for
non-attendance in a summons of a person who has already been arrested,
remanded, interrogated, and discharged from the case?
The only reasonable explanation
in this unreasonable charade is that there were certain legal lacunae in the
order of the Trial Court which may be used by future litigants, and hence need
to be dispelled before a higher forum. But this argument does not stand on its
own legs. Trial Courts are not constitutional courts and their judgements are
not quotable. Any court can disagree with the rationale taken by a trial court.
We fail to find any reasonable
logic behind the challenge of the acquittal in summons, while the punishment is
already infructuous. But as it often happens, when reasonable logics leave the
floor, we can think of unreasonable probabilities that might be the reason.
Perhaps the ED is only looking to make a media show of Arvind Kejriwal; perhaps
the senior counsel simply desires a new car; or perhaps the ED already knows
that the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal shall soon be overturned by the High
Court. Arvind Kejriwal has already moved to the Supreme Court for a change
in the bench at the Delhi High Court, citing reasons of biasness.
The author is not a fan of
Arvind Kejriwal. The author is a fan of Jack Daniels whiskey which was not
available in Delhi due to the Delhi Liquor Policy under Arvind Kejriwal.
So we bear no sympathy towards the then Chief Minister. But after having gone
through what Kejriwal has endured, if he thinks that the ED is banking on the
bias of the judges in the High Court, we can hardly blame the man.
