According to Kejriwal, his “illegal arrest” during a campaign will give the ruling party in the Center an unfair advantage.
Arvind Kejriwal, the chief minister of Delhi, has responded to the Enforcement Directorate’s affidavit in the Supreme Court, stating that his arrest is a classic example of how the central government, led by the ruling party, has abused the ED and the PMLA to destroy the Aam Aadmi Party and its leaders, which is its largest political rival. “During an election cycle when political activity is at its highest, the petitioner’s (Kejriwal) illegal arrest has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner’s political party and will provide the ruling party at the Centre an unjust upper hand in the ongoing elections,” the reply said.
Gentleman Rahul Dravid won everyone’s hearts with his behavior at the voting center.
According to LiveLaw, Kejriwal stated in his response, “A level-playing field — which is a pre-requisite for ‘free and fair elections’ — has been compromised with the illegal arrest of the petitioner.”
There has been no proof or material to show that AAP received funds or advanced kickbacks from the South group — let alone utilizing them in the Goa election campaign, the chief minister said adding that not a single rupee was traced back to the AAP and ED’s allegations have no tangible evidence.
In its affidavit to the Supreme Court, the ED stated that Kejriwal’s actions convinced the investigating officer that he was guilty of money laundering. March 21 saw Kejriwal’s detention in connection with a money-laundering case involving the liquor policy of Delhi. So far in the case, Kejriwal has not received any legal redress.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Kejriwal’s plea challenging the arrest and said Kejriwal’s arrest can’t be deemed illegal as there was no contravention of the law. Kejriwal approached the Supreme Court against the high court order. The top court, on April 15, sought a response from the ED on Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest.
“Even on the date of the search during his interrogation, while recording his statement under Section 17 of the PMLA, he was avoiding answering questions by being evasive and non-co-operative even for simple non-incriminating questions,” the ED said.
Reader Interactions