Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has taken his legal battle to the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court dismissed his plea contesting his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in relation to the excise policy case.

The High Court's decision, made on Tuesday, deemed Kejriwal's arrest lawful, stating that the remand cannot be deemed "illegal."

In response to Kejriwal's plea, the high court held that the legality of his arrest and remand must be assessed in accordance with the law, not based on the timing of elections. The court rejected Kejriwal's argument regarding the timing of his arrest vis-a-vis the upcoming general elections, citing the absence of any malintent on the part of the ED.

What did the Delhi HC say?

In its recent ruling, the Delhi High Court underscored the non-cooperative stance of AAP leader towards the investigating agency. Despite receiving nine summonses, Kejriwal did not participate in the investigation, as noted by Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma's bench.

The court's observations, delivered while rejecting Kejriwal's plea, highlighted that his initial summon dated back to October 2023, well before India's General Elections or the implementation of the Model Code of Conduct.

Contrary to claims, Kejriwal consciously chose not to join the investigation, although he responded to all summonses. The bench pointed out that he was well-informed about the case, given the judicial custody of several co-accused in the same Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), along with his familiarity with the recorded statements in the ECIR.

Therefore, the court dismissed any notion that Kejriwal skipped the summonses due to a lack of understanding about the reasons for his summoning.

Additionally, the court stressed that there cannot be separate legal standards for ordinary citizens and public officials like the Chief Minister. The privileges granted by holding a public office do not entitle individuals to special treatment from investigating agencies solely based on their official status.

Clarifying the nature of the legal dispute, the bench held that the case is solely between Arvind Kejriwal and the Directorate of Enforcement, not a conflict involving the Central Government. This distinction is crucial in understanding the legal framework within which the case operates

The Court asserted that it is important to maintain a legal focus devoid of political influence in judicial proceedings. It stated that political factors should never sway the court's deliberations or decision-making process.

The primary role of the Court is to impartially assess presented evidence and apply relevant laws to reach a fair judgment, ensuring that extraneous factors, especially political considerations, do not compromise the pursuit of justice or the integrity of the legal process.

Judicial independence from political influence is vital, with the Court reiterating that its sole responsibility is to uphold laws enacted by Parliament, representing the will of the people. The Court stressed its role as a custodian of justice, focusing on constitutional morality rather than delving into the realm of political morality, which falls outside its purview.

Concluding its judgment, the Court held that judges are bound by law, not politics, and that legal principles, not political affiliations, drive judgments. In the case of Arvind Kejriwal's non-cooperation with the investigation, the Court noted that his arrest was warranted given the circumstances and the urgency of the ongoing trial.

The Court upheld the validity of Kejriwal's arrest and the subsequent remand order, stating that they were not in contravention of the law. Evidence collected by the Enforcement Directorate indicated Kejriwal's involvement in the concealment and use of illicit proceeds, both in his personal capacity and as the Aam Aadmi Party's convenor.