The Delhi High Court has sought a response from Arvind Kejriwal on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging his acquittal in proceedings arising out of non-compliance with summons issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Court issued notice while hearing the ED’s appeal against a trial court order that had discharged Kejriwal in connection with alleged failure to appear before the agency pursuant to summons issued during its investigation.
The matter forms part of the continuing litigation surrounding enforcement proceedings initiated against the Delhi Chief Minister in relation to alleged irregularities connected with the excise policy investigation.
Background of the Case
The case originated from multiple summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate to Arvind Kejriwal during the course of its investigation under the PMLA. The agency had alleged that the summons were issued in exercise of statutory powers under Section 50 of the Act, requiring appearance and cooperation with the investigation.
According to the ED, Kejriwal did not comply with repeated summons issued during the investigation stage, prompting the agency to initiate proceedings before a trial court alleging violation of statutory obligations under the PMLA framework.
However, the trial court subsequently acquitted Kejriwal in the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate, holding that the material placed before it did not justify continuation of proceedings for non-compliance with summons.
Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the ED approached the Delhi High Court seeking reversal of the trial court’s decision.
ED Challenges Trial Court’s Acquittal Order
Before the High Court, counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate argued that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the statutory nature of obligations arising under summons issued pursuant to Section 50 of the PMLA.
It was contended that compliance with summons issued by the ED is mandatory during investigation into scheduled offences and proceeds of crime under the Act. The agency submitted that failure to respond to such summons undermines the investigative process and warrants judicial scrutiny.
The ED therefore sought setting aside of the acquittal order and restoration of proceedings against Kejriwal.
Delhi High Court Issues Notice to Arvind Kejriwal
After hearing preliminary submissions, the Delhi High Court issued notice to Arvind Kejriwal and directed him to file a response to the Enforcement Directorate’s petition.
The Court indicated that it would examine whether the trial court’s decision acquitting the Chief Minister in the summons-related complaint suffered from legal infirmity requiring appellate intervention.
The matter has been listed for further hearing after completion of pleadings by the parties.
Legal Framework Governing ED Summons Under PMLA
Summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate during investigation are governed by Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which empowers authorised officers to require attendance, production of documents, and recording of statements during inquiry proceedings.
Statements recorded under Section 50 are treated as judicial proceedings for specified purposes and carry evidentiary significance within the statutory framework of the Act.
Courts have repeatedly emphasised that individuals summoned under the PMLA are required to cooperate with investigation unless protected by specific legal exemptions recognised under constitutional or statutory provisions.
The present proceedings before the High Court therefore raise questions concerning the scope of compliance obligations arising from such summons and the consequences of alleged non-compliance.
Context of Ongoing Excise Policy Investigation
The summons issued to Arvind Kejriwal formed part of a broader investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate into alleged irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi excise policy.
The investigation has resulted in multiple proceedings involving political functionaries, public officials, and private entities, with parallel litigation pending before various courts across jurisdictions.
The ED has maintained that the summons issued to Kejriwal were necessary for effective investigation into alleged financial transactions linked to proceeds of crime under the PMLA framework.
Issues Likely to Be Examined by the High Court
The Delhi High Court is expected to examine several legal questions arising from the appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate, including:
- whether the trial court correctly interpreted the scope of obligations arising from ED summons
- whether acquittal at the complaint stage was legally justified
- whether material placed on record disclosed sufficient grounds for continuation of proceedings
- whether procedural safeguards under criminal law were properly applied
The Court’s determination on these issues may have implications for the enforcement of summons issued during PMLA investigations.
Significance of the Proceedings
The outcome of the ED’s appeal assumes importance in the context of judicial interpretation of compliance obligations under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The case also forms part of a wider set of proceedings involving enforcement actions connected with the Delhi excise policy investigation.
Legal observers note that the High Court’s decision may clarify the threshold for initiating and sustaining complaints relating to alleged non-compliance with investigative summons issued under specialised economic offence statutes.
The matter will be taken up for further hearing after Arvind Kejriwal files his response to the Enforcement Directorate’s challenge against the acquittal order.
Also Read: 81% Women Lawyers Say Their Career Path Is Tougher Than Male Colleagues, 34% Report Gender Bias at Work: SCBA National Survey
