“Not a single Rupee was traced back to AAP”: Kejriwal to SC in excise policy case

April 27, 2024

New Delhi: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal filed his response to the Directorate of Enforcement’s (ED) affidavit in the Supreme Court on Saturday and said that there exists “no proof or material” demonstrating that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) received funds or advanced kickbacks from the South group, let alone utilising them in the Goa election campaign.

“Not a single Rupee was traced back to the AAP, and the allegations put forth in this regard are devoid of any tangible evidence, rendering them vague and baseless without any corroboration,” Kejriwal said in response to the ED affidavit.

“No proof of even any cash payment was given. There exists no proof or material demonstrating that the AAP received funds or advanced kickbacks from the South group, let alone utilised them in the Goa election campaign. Not a single Rupee was traced back to the AAP, and the allegations put forth in this regard are devoid of any tangible evidence, rendering them vague, baseless without any corroboration,” the affidavit stated.

Recently, ED had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court opposing Delhi Chief Kejriwal’s plea against his arrest. Filing his rejoinder on ED’s affidavit, Kejriwal said that the central agency is abusing its power of arrest in the middle of the general election.

He said that the mode, manner and timing of his arrest just before the schedule of the Lok Sabha elections had been announced and the Model Code of Conduct had come into play, speaks volumes about the “arbitrariness” of the ED.

“This timeline establishes the fact that Kejriwal has been arrested intentionally with a malafide intent without any necessity to arrest,” stated the rejoinder of the Chief Minister.

The present case is a “classic case” of how the ruling party-led central government has misused the central agency- ED and its wide powers under PMLA to crush its biggest political opponent -Aam Aadmi Party and its leaders, it added.

Kejriwal in his response further said that there is a glaring absence of material indicating his involvement in any criminal activity relating to the predicate offence whether it be concealment, possession, acquisition, or utilisation of proceeds of crime to attract the vice of Section 3 PMLA.