PMLA – Delhi Liquor Policy Case 3

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.

PMLA - Delhi Liquor Policy Case

The timeline of the Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Case looks like a game of snakes and ladders. For the purposes of this article, we have refrained from going into the merits of the case and the 598-page judgement of the Delhi trial court in the matter. We simply take a look at the timeline which offers some interesting revelations.

• During August-November 2022, the CBI and the ED registered the corruption and money-laundering cases almost simultaneously. The ED then quickly files a chargesheet where Arvind Kejriwal is not named as an accused.
  
  
• In March 2024, the ED arrested Arvind Kejriwal. For the first time in independent India, a sitting Chief Minister of a state was arrested. The Lok Sabha elections were scheduled after two months.
  
  
• By May 2024, the ED had already filed multiple chargesheets in the case. Only in the 7th chargesheet it named Arvind Kejriwal as an accused, after his arrest. This happened just before the elections 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
  
  
• In June 2024, Kejriwal was granted bail by the Delhi trial court. The next day, the bail was stayed by the Delhi High Court upon oral mentioning by the ED. Subsequently, the bail was cancelled by the High Court.
  
  
• After rejection from the High Court, Kejriwal appealed for bail in the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the CBI emerged. Kejriwal was arrested by the CBI while already in custody in the ED case. Kejriwal secured bail in the ED case but had to continue incarceration because of being arrested by the CBI as well now.
  
  
• In July 2024, The Delhi High Court reserved its order in the bail matter in the CBI case. The same day, the CBI filed its 5th and final chargesheet in the case where Kejriwal was named as an accused for the first time. Then the High Court's order came where Kejriwal's bail was rejected.
  
  
• Finally, Kejriwal secured bail in September 2024 from the Supreme Court and discharge in the entire case in February 2026.
  
  
• This is the second time in three months when a high-profile political ED case has fallen flat because the predicate offence has been invalidated - the previous one being National Herald in December 2025.
  
  
• The government had already challenged the closure of a ED case upon closure of the predicate offence in the National Herald case. This goes against the principles established in various Supreme Court judgements including Vijay Madanlal Choudhury. But the matter remains sub-judice for now.
  
  
• Meanwhile, the government had proposed the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill in August 2025. It may be time to review that.

Winter has Come

I record these words in the manner expected of a sworn maester of the Citadel, though I fear the quill trembles more from futility than cold. A maester is meant to chronicle wars, lineages, treaties, and the slow workings of governance. For most of my life, I believed such things to be the true machinery of the world, the gears upon which the fortunes of kings and smallfolk alike turned. Yet for years… mayhaps for decades… my memory adheres to dates now only loosely, like old wax to a candle stub. For a long time I warnings of something far simpler and far graver – the Others.

I spoke of them not as the singers do, cladding truth in pretty liesso that a frightened child may sleep; nor as the old maids do, twisting fear into fables to keep children from wandering too far. No, I relied on dusty accounts preserved in rotten parchment and faded ink, the sort of scholarship that kings assume carries no blood. These were not stories. They were records, measurements, testimonies, and observations. Dry things. Tedious things. The sort of things only maesters pretend to find stirring. Yet I believed, with a young man’s stubbornness, that if truth were laid bare plainly enough, even the thickest lord might at last take heed.

I spoke their warnings plainly. I wrote treatises. Tedious, meticulous, footnoted treatises. I implored lordlings and septons, even the Citadel itself. I spoke to any steward or captain or hedge knight fool enough to lend an ear – but few cared to listen. Few cared. Fewer still believed. Those who did were dismissed as fools – men unhinged from reason, or worse, men seeking attention.

A wandering wildling would sometimes stagger south of the Wall bearing warnings – breathless fragments about the dead stirring, the woods whispering, the cold walking. These men had little in the world – no property, no noble sigil, not even a name worth recording. Their words were worth even less. They were waved away with the same casual motion one uses to scatter crows from grain.

The North was supposed to remember. A proud boast, repeated around hearths, embroidered on banners, recited with the solemnity of prayer, etched into the very identity of their houses. But remembering is not the same as understanding. They remembered the words, not the meaning. They repeated winter is coming as one might repeat the humdrum greeting of a passing acquaintance, never pausing to ask what winter meant, what it required, what harbingers announced its arrival, or what winter demanded of them.

Winter does not always announce itself with roaring winds and white horizons. It begins subtly. A frost lingering longer than it should. A sickness that spreads in odd patterns. Crops that turn to grey mush before harvest. A dull haze clinging to the air, dimming the sun to a copper smear. A strange stillness in the city.

All things I dutifully noted, dated, compared with records centuries old. It was my duty to be dull, and I was dutiful in it. I presented my findings before maesters far more learned than I – men who had forgotten more than I would learn in a lifetime – they nodded politely while their eyes drifted to more fashionable concerns – trade fleets, naval skirmishes, the lineage of some minor house’s third son.

So winter bided its time. Then it leapt.

It happened faster than any chronicle could capture. Villages emptied overnight. At first one. Then three more. Then dozens. Ravens stopped returning. The forests to the far north went silent. When the truth could no longer be denied, the great lords sent out their men, but swords and shields forged in the south do little against cold that devours not only flesh but will. Steel cannot wound cold. The Wall fell. the winds that followed were not winds at all, but something older wearing wind as a mask.

Still I wrote. I recorded. It is the maester’s duty. I noted the creeping chill in my bones, the dimming of the sun, the way ink froze at the tip of the quill before I could shape a full sentence. I wrote even when my breath smoked and vanished faster than I could draw the next. I can hear them outside – patient, tireless, without breath or warmth or haste. They have no need for haste.

I had believed, foolishly, that scholarship might serve as shield. I thought knowledge, once shared, would rouse men to action. But the scrolls gathered dust while the world burned white. Men preferred their comforts, certainties, routines. Their markets and their little disputes. Even as the cold thickened around them, they clung to the familiar warmth of denial.

Some whispered, in those last days, that this winter was unlike the others. They were correct, though far too late in being so. Winter had not merely arrived. It had awakened.

Perhaps that is why I write this last entry. Not for men, for there are none left to read it. But for myself, to pretend that I once belonged to a world that believed in reason.

My hands grow stiff. My breath smokes and then fades. The ink congeals. My heart slows. I understand, now, that I am the last. The last to think, to fear, to remember. When I fall, the world of men ends.

They are at the door.

I can feel the cold fingers already pressing into my bones, hollowing out my bones one breath at a time. There is no pain. Pain belongs to the living. Soon I will stand again, pale and silent, and whatever thoughts once lived behind these eyes will scatter like snow in a hard wind.

These are my dying words.

No human will ever read them.

No maester will stumble upon these scrolls. No child will whisper these lines as bedtime fright. No king will consult them for counsel. The last eyes capable of understanding this script are the ones growing dim even as I write.

And when I rise again, I will not remember the warnings I gave, nor the truth they carried, nor the world that ignored them until it was far too late.

Winter has come, and there is no one left to heed it.

PMLA – ED vs. Didi

On 8^th January, 2026, the city of Kolkata saw an interesting altercation between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the West Bengal Chief Minister, Smt. Mamata Banerjee. This article does not claim to be an exhaustive or even an accurate description of the events that have transpired since. There is much to be revealed (or forgotten, depending on the media narrative) in the days to come. However, this article aims to answer (or just raise) 6 questions that remain unanswered as on the night on 11^th January, 2026.

1.      Does the ED need to inform the local police of a raid prior to commencing the raid?

As per multiple media reports, the raid at Pratik Jain’s residence started at around 6 AM at Loudon Street. A police sergeant arrived at Jain’s residence at around 9 AM, but was denied entry. It is also reported that even a DCP was denied entry. However, it is not reported why the sergeant sought entry in the first place, or why the DCP did not immediately react.

After trying for 2 hours, the Kolkata police filed a complaint at 11:20 AM. Shortly afterwards at 11:30 AM, the ED informed Kolkata police about its presence at Jain’s residence. Interestingly, this information has vanished from the internet. Readers may still find it on Times of India, Kolkata edition, dt. 10.01.2026, Page 3, or other similar print editions. Also, ChatGPT remembers.

Strictly and legally, there is no statutory requirement of any central agency (ED / IT / CBI / NIA) to inform the local police before conducting a search / raid. That said, it is customary for a central agency to inform the local police for coordination or security. When this does not happen, it may raise to disputes regarding the identity of the ED officers, or create logistical hurdles, or simply lead to a confrontation between the two authorities, as it happened in the present case.

This is not the first time the ED has conducting raids without informing the local police. The agency found itself amid a similar controversy in 2022 when the then Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh and member of the Indian National Congress (INC / Congress), Bhupesh Baghel, objected to the ED’s raids occurring without informing the local police. In 2025, Baghel was raided and his son was arrested by the ED.

2.      Can the persons who are being raided leave the premises?

It is common practice for a raiding agency to restrict the movement of persons while conducting a raid. This is to prevent removal or destruction of evidence. However, the agency is not allowed to restrict the movement of persons or even their departure from the premises as that would amount to illegal detention or arrest. A raid is conducted on a premises, and persons may be allowed to enter or exit upon inspection.

In the present case, a controversy emerged when police personnel were not allowed to enter the premises during the raid and when the West Bengal Chief Minister entered the premises and exited with documents and digital devices. The ED has already filed a case before the Calcutta High Court that this act of the Chief Minister amounts to obstruction of an official investigation. However, the exact allegations and the defence are not known yet.

3.      Can the ED file a Writ Petition?

As of 11^th January, 2026, the ED has filed 2 writ petitions – (1) on 9^th January, before the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State of West Bengal, the Chief Minister, senior Kolkata Police officials, and the CBI, and (2) on 10^th January, before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution against the State of West Bengal, the Chief Minister, and senior Kolkata Police officials.

The Article 226 petition alleges an obstruction in an official investigation, removal of evidence, and seeks a CBI enquiry into the events that transpired during the raid. An Article 226 application is often made against a state actor / government machinery, in this case the state of West Bengal. The matter could not be heard amidst a chaotic courtroom on 9^th January and has been rescheduled for 14^th January. On this, the ED is considering requesting the Supreme Court to transfer the case to the Delhi High Court for a more conducive environment for adjudication. This would also be an insult to the state of West Bengal, who is the primary respondent in the ED’s petition, during an upcoming election.

The Article 32 petition again alleges interference and obstruction in an official investigation and seeks direction on how the investigation should proceed without such obstruction and the restoration of evidence. An Article 32 petition is often made where there is an imminent threat to fundamental rights, in this case, the right of an unobstructed investigation. The ED seeks to have the matter heard before the Supreme Court on 12^th January.

But the pertinent question here is, can the ED file a writ petition under Article 32 at all? A writ under this Article is normally filed by a person whose fundamental rights are threatened by the state. Does the ED, being an agency under the central government, have fundamental rights? This question was asked by Justice Oka of the Supreme Courtto the ED in April 2025 in a separate writ petition under Article 32. In that case, the ASG withdrew the petition and followed other legal recourses. So now that Justice Oka has retired, is the ED trying its luck again or is toying with another legal strategy by parallel proceedings before the High Court and the Supreme Court with similar petitions?

Curiously, no public discourse has yet addressed whether sanction would be required before any criminal process against ED officers, assuming acts were done in official discharge and protected under section 218 of the BNSS [197 of the CrPC].

4.      Can ED raids happen for long forlorn cases?

 The present case emanates from the ED ECIR no. ECIR/17/HIU/2020 dt. 28.11.2020 which in-turn comes from the CBI complaint no. RC0102020A0022 27.11.2020. Since then, the ED has made arrests and attachments as a part of its investigations, conducted by both the CBI and the ED.

There is nothing on record that shows that the ED had any fresh cause of action for conducting raids. However, it is the nature of investigation that they need to be unpredictable to be effective. The ED has alleged that I-PAC has been involved in hawala transfers from illegal coal mining which has been used for campaign expenses.

Legally, under the “continuing offence” doctrine, the ED has the right to initiate PMLA investigations that may have occurred anytime in the past, even before the PMLA was enacted. This has been widely discussed in the case of Nawab Malik. The ED had alleged that the money laundering in Malik’s case had happened in 1999, due to which he was arrested in 2022. The case is presently stayed by the Bombay High Court.

5.      What about the CCTV footage?

CCTV footage has been collected by the Kolkata police and Bidhannagar police from Pratik Jain’s residence and I-PAC’s office respectively. The ED has insisted in court to freeze the CCTV footage, showing its importance for both sides of the investigations. As of the date of the article, the footage has already been forwarded to forensic labs to find the identity of the ED officials in support of the local police investigation.

It is unclear why identification of individual ED officers is required at all, when the raid is admitted and official, unless the intent is to pursue personal criminal liability rather than institutional accountability.

This also reveals the difference in the approach of the state and the ED. The state is pursuing FIRs and police investigations, i.e. asserting territorial criminal jurisdiction. On the other hand, the ED is filing writs to assert legal supremacy and federal rights.

6.      Why is Mamata Banerjee blaming Amit Shah?

The Enforcement Directorate reports to the Ministry of Finance. The political head of that ministry is Nirmala Sitharaman, who works under the Prime Minister – Narendra Modi. However, the West Bengal Chief Minister and other TMC leaders chose to repeatedly name Amit Shah as the perpetrator of the ED action. Incidentally, Amit Shah has been visiting Bengal to organize campaign efforts for the upcoming assembly elections. So the West Bengal Chief Minister has chosen to attack a target closer to home and keep the fight regional – on a turf where she has greater command. Of course if Amit Shah is accused, Modi cannot be entirely uninvolved. But the Chief Minister has avoided naming Modi and instead chosen a target that is more likely to stick to the blame and lacks public appeal. This also allows Mamata Banerjee to keep options open for future parliamentary cooperation with the BJP. And of course, by not attacking Modi she has avoided being named an anti-national. This would be useful in future national elections.

Hari-Har

Paradox

Vishnu is symbolized as the preserver of the universe. Resting in the cosmic ocean (sheer sagar), he sleeps. The ferocious 100-headed Sheshnag is domesticated and serves as the bed. The goddess of all prosperity sits at Vishnu’s feet, symbolizing his power. Vishnu is the preserver. He symbolizes social structure. Yet, Vishnu takes no real family. Laxmi is more of a consort than a wife. Of course in the mortal avatars, Vishnu marries Laxmi. But Vishnu himself isn't depicted as a family man.

On the other hand, the hermit (vairagi) god, Shiv, is depicted as a family man with a complete household. He has a battery of household staff, residence, legitimate wife, children, daughters-in-law, rides etc. Shiv is represented as a household man, even though his role is that of a ascetic, yogi, and destroyer.

There is a natural dichotomy in this. Why would this be? Is there a narrative explanation? Shiv has been depicted as a family man to showcase that even a vairagi can be a household person. But this is not shown in Vishnu. What other explanations can be there?

Vishnu

Vishnu is the preserver of the cosmic order (dharma), which is beyond the narrow human family unit. If he is shown enmeshed in family, his scope would shrink. His domain is the whole universe. Why tie him to one household?

He doesn’t need children or a household, because Lakshmi herself represents fertility, prosperity, continuity. She is the generative force. Thus, the Vishnu and Lakshmi combination serves as a self-sufficient unit.

When Vishnu enters the world as Ram or Krishn, he takes wives, sons, in-laws, and through them demonstrates righteous conduct in family and society. The avatar “borrows” household responsibilities so that Vishnu himself can remain unbound.

Vishnu’s role is meta-social. He preserves structure, not by embodying it in his personal life, but by overseeing and restoring it through avatars.

Shiv

Shiv is depicted as a yogi, outside the world. Yet, he is at once the most complete family man. This is holds a deliberate lesson – detachment does not require renunciation. One can be rooted in the world, yet free from its boundations.

Unlike Lakshmi who is seen to serve Vishnu, Parvati is a partner – in tapasya, power, and household. Through her, Shiv is forced to engage in worldly life – have sons, fight demons, and care for devotees. He doesn’t preserve order like Vishnu; he challenges it, destroys arrogance, but at the same time nurtures his family.

Shiv’s paradox teaches a different ideal – the sage need not abandon family; the deepest yogi can still be husband and father.

Reconciliation

Vishnu worship historically was linked with kingship and order – kings wanted a god beyond petty family disputes. Shaiva traditions, often rooted in folk and tribal cultures, needed a god who was close to daily life – hence the family setting.

For householders, Shiv provides a relatable deity – even the greatest ascetic cooks for his kids, fights with his wife, solves domestic quarrels. For rulers and administrators, Vishnu provides the archetype – beyond family, concerned with law, order, and dharma.

Dharma is not one path but a balance.

This reversal is not accidental. Vishnu shows how to run the cosmos; Shiv shows how to run the home. The preserver is personally detached; the destroyer is personally entangled. Each battles the idea of detachment and renunciation. Where Vishnu teaches cosmic preservation without personal attachment, Shiv teaches personal attachment without loss of cosmic detachment. Each looks towards the other as an ideal to strive for. They are enthralled by each other and aspire to one another. In the process, they become one – Hari-Har.