Delhi court reserves order on stay of summons issued to Kejriwal on ED’s complaints

March 15, 2024

New Delhi : The Rouse Avenue Court on Friday reserved an order on the stay of summons issued to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on complaints filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Kejriwal has challenged the summons issued by the court after taking Cognizance of two complaints filed by the ED for avoidance of the summons issued to him.

Special judge (CBI) Rakesh Syal reserved the order after hearing submissions of ASG S V Raju for ED and Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta along with Advocate Rajiv Mohan.

It was submitted by Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta that there was no disobedience by Arvind Kejriwal. A person can be summoned only when his non-appearance is intentional.

He replied to each summons and informed that he could not come due to his responsibility as the Chief Minister.

The senior advocate also argued that the revisionist was not given show cause notice by the ED before filing these complaints.

Three summons were issued to Kejriwal as chief minister of Delhi.
He is a public servant therefore a prior sanction was required to prosecute him which was not obtained, the Senior advocate argued.
“I (Kejriwal) have not failed, I mentioned the reasons for not appearing. I went to the CBI office in 2023. Purpose and reasons of calling me personally not cleared by the ED,” senior counsel submitted.

He also submitted that Summons were deliberately sent for dates on which he was busy with public functions like budget preparation. The trial court did not consider my replies to ED that I can’t come as busy in the public function as CM. Can it be called intentional?

Advocate Rajiv Mohan argued on the second revision moved by Kejriwal. It was submitted that the summons were issued in haste without application of judicial mind.

Advocate Rajiv Mohan argued that the trial court issued summons on the same day after taking Cognizance.

The trial court also did not consider the responses by Kejriwal to the summons issued by the ED, he added.

Counsel for Kejriwal said that to prosecute him under 174 CrPc there should be disobedience and intention. The court first decides whether there is any disobedience or not.

“The trial court did not consider this aspect. A person is being made an accused and order is passed cryptically,” counsel argued.

He further submitted that the Trial court considered the version of the complainant as gospel truth. The order of summoning was passed without mindful consideration and applying judicial mind.
The word in person is not in the form for issuing summons prescribed by the legislature, the counsel submitted. This form can’t be interpolated.
“Due to failure of justice an ordinary citizen is an accused before the court as judicial mind was not applied by the court, Rajiv Mohan argued.
There was an Interpolation in the form, incorporating the word in person. A person can not be summoned in person to produce evidence, he submitted.