Case title: Arvind Kejriwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 985/2024 & CRL.M.A. 9427/2024.
Decided on: 27.03.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case involves a writ petition filed by Arvind Kejriwal seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition challenges the arrest and remand orders issued by the Enforcement Directorate, alleging them to be illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. Serious concerns have been raised regarding the legality of the arrest, potential political motivations behind it, and its impact on the democratic process, especially with impending elections.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The petitioner has approached the court seeking relief under this article, which deals with the power of High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights.
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C): The petitioner has also invoked this section, which pertains to the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary for preventing abuse of the process of any court or for securing the ends of justice.
Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22(1) & (2) of the Constitution of India: These constitutional articles are referenced in the petition to argue violations of fundamental rights due to the arrest and remand orders issued by the Enforcement Directorate.
Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA): The validity of this section is questioned in relation to the arrest and remand of the petitioner, raising concerns about its application and impact on constitutional rights.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The petitioner, Arvind Kejriwal, contends that the actions of the Enforcement Directorate in arresting him and the subsequent remand orders are illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The petitioner argues that his arrest and detention violate his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22(1) & (2) of the Constitution of India. There are allegations of political motivation behind the arrest, suggesting that it is a deliberate attempt to disrupt the democratic process, especially with upcoming elections. The petitioner seeks immediate release from custody, challenging the legality of the arrest and the remand order passed by the Special Court.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The Enforcement Directorate asserts its right to file a reply and be heard before any order is passed by the court, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and representation. The Directorate opposes the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner cannot decide whether a reply is necessary and that they should have the opportunity to present their side of the case. The respondent highlights the similarity between the relief sought in the main petition and the application for interim relief, indicating that both should be considered together for a comprehensive decision. There are claims of deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner in providing necessary documents and information, leading to objections and hindering the legal process.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court acknowledges the serious legal and validity issues raised in the petition regarding the arrest and remand of the petitioner. It recognizes concerns about potential political motivations, violation of constitutional rights, and the impact on the democratic process. The court emphasizes the importance of natural justice, ensuring fair representation and a balanced hearing for both parties. It highlights the need for both sides to be heard before deciding on important issues raised in the petition.
The court directs the Enforcement Directorate to file a reply and be heard before passing any order, considering it essential for a fair decision. It rejects the contention that no reply is required from the respondent, emphasizing the need for effective representation. The court notes the similarity between the relief sought in the main petition and the application for interim relief, indicating that both are interconnected. It considers the reply by the Directorate of Enforcement crucial to deciding the case comprehensively.
The court upholds the principles of natural justice, audi alteram partem, ensuring that both parties have the opportunity to present their arguments and evidence. It emphasizes the duty of the court to hear both sides fairly and make decisions based on a thorough examination of all relevant information. The court grants the respondent, Directorate of Enforcement, the opportunity to file a detailed response and present their arguments before any order is passed. It stresses the Importance of fair representation and a comprehensive consideration of all aspects of the case before making a decision. The court’s judgment reflects a commitment to upholding the principles of natural justice and ensuring a just and balanced legal process in the proceedings.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
Click here to read the full judgement.
