New Delhi: In response to a plea filed by Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal challenging summons in the excise policy case, the Delhi High Court has called upon the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provide a response. Aam Aadmi Party leader Atishi remarked on Wednesday that the investigative agency must clarify in court whether these summons are lawful or not, leaving the decision to the judiciary.
“The repeated issuance of summons by the Enforcement Directorate to CM Arvind Kejriwal has prompted him to contest their legality in the Delhi High Court. While the ED has opposed this petition, the court has chosen to hear the matter and has summoned a response from the agency. It is now up to the ED to justify the legality of these summons in court. The matter is currently under consideration in both the Delhi Rouse Avenue Court and the High Court,” Atishi stated.
Earlier today, Aam Aadmi Party MP Sandeep Pathak reiterated their commitment to accept the court’s decision, emphasizing that the case is politically motivated.
“We have consistently maintained that this entire case is politically driven. Given its fraudulent and politically charged nature, the ED’s summonses are baseless both technically and intentionally. We have brought this matter before the court, demonstrating our unwavering trust in the judicial process. We will abide by whatever decision the court reaches. Patience is key, and if we stand by the truth, justice will prevail,” Pathak told ANI.
The Delhi High Court, after hearing initial arguments from both sides, has scheduled the next hearing for April 22, 2024. No formal notice was issued, as the ED opposed it, with their lawyers already appearing before the court in advance.
Last week, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Rouse Avenue Court granted bail to Arvind Kejriwal in response to two complaints filed by the ED for non-compliance with their summons. Kejriwal physically attended the hearing.
The ED has stated that they seek to record Kejriwal’s statement regarding the formulation of policy, pre-finalization meetings, and allegations of bribery in the case.
