The Supreme Court on Friday reserved the order of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea against his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement and subsequent remand in the excise policy case, even as the probe agency filed a supplementary charge sheet naming both Kejriwal and AAP as accused in the case.

Reserving the order, a bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta said that reserving the judgment in the case would not come in the way of Kejriwal approaching the special PMLA court for bail in accordance with law.

The court gave both the petitioner, Kejriwal and the prosecuting agency Directorate of Enforcement, a week’s time to file their additional written notes.

The court called for the records relating to the case, stating that they wanted to see the statements of witnesses recorded after October 30, 2023, when the judgment denying bail to the former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia was delivered.

After perusing the record of the case, the court asked the ED to submit a chart to show what new evidence had emerged after former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Sisodia’s arrest to justify its decision to arrest Kejriwal.

During the two-hour long hearing, both sides advanced arguments touching both on the facts of the case and the legal aspects. The hearing was essentially centred around Section 19 (Power of arrest) and Section 45 (Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

As Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju referred to material in the possession of ED pointing to the alleged payment of Rs. 100 crores to Aam Aadmi Party’s national convenor Arvind Kejriwal through hawala route, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, referring to a tabulated chart he placed before the court, in a poser asked “what weight will you give to both versions? Right side is the only 1 inculpatory statement. On the left there are 9 exculpatory statements. Zero weight given.”

In the course of the hearing, ASG Raju appearing for ED said that courts can only look into the material that has been relied upon by the ED in holding Kejriwal guilty under Section 19 of the PMLA and proceedings against him and not the one that has been discarded by the investigating agency.

At one point when ASG Raju said that they have evidence of money being routed to AAP through hawala channels, the bench asked him if this find recorded in writing by the investigating agency in his “reasons to believe” before affecting arrest of Kejriwal as mandated under Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The Section 19 that provides for the power of arrest says that if investigating officer has on “the basis of material in his possession, reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.”

In the today’s hearing ASG Raju dwelt on different aspects of the case leading to the arrest of Kejriwal asserting the ED has evidence of his involvement in the offence.

The Supreme court on May 10, 2024, had ordered the release of Arvind Kejriwal for 21 days – till June 1, to participate in the ongoing general election to Lok Sabha. The court had directed him to return to jail on June 2, 2024.

Kejriwal who was arrested on March 21, approached the top court challenging the Delhi High Court’s April 9, 2024, order rejecting his plea against his arrest by the ED and the subsequent remand.

Kejriwal in his plea against the High Court order has contended that his arrest after announcement of the General Elections is “motivated by extraneous considerations”. Describing his arrest as “motivated”, Kejriwal has contended that a sitting Chief Minister has been arrested in the middle of election cycle and especially after the announcement of the schedule of the 2024 Lok Sabha election.