The ED is arguing against the acquittal of Arvind Kejriwal, who leads the AAP and used to be the chief minister of Delhi, in two separate criminal cases. These cases were opened because he didn’t show up after being asked to in the investigation of the alleged alcohol policy fraud. The ED wants the January 22nd decision by the lower court which said Kejriwal hadn’t done anything wrong when ignoring a government official’s order, to be reviewed.
ED appeal and the legal basis for the petitions
The ED filed two requests with the High Court for criminal cases that were started in February and March of 2024. These were under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, which is about not being present when told to be by a government official. The ED says the Prevention of Money Laundering Act gives them the authority to start criminal cases when people deliberately ignore requests.
The ED claims Kejriwal intentionally didn’t respond to the requests, raised unimportant issues, and found excuses to avoid being investigated. The appeals are scheduled to be heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Wednesday, and she will look at the ED’s challenge to the lower court’s decisions to say Kejriwal was not guilty.
Trial court reasoning for acquittal in January orders
The lower court found Kejriwal not guilty after looking at six requests total (three from 2023 and three from 2024), all of which were delivered by email. The court said that simply not appearing after being asked to isn’t the same as deliberately disobeying, and the prosecution didn’t definitively prove he intentionally didn’t comply.
The method of delivering the requests was a key issue. The court said that neither the Criminal Procedure Code nor the Prevention of Money Laundering Act allow requests to be delivered by email, and that the law generally requires them to be delivered in person. Because of this, the court found issues with how the ED proved the requests were delivered and what Kejriwal was thinking.
Context within the wider excise policy probe and related cases
These cases about the requests are part of a much larger legal and investigative situation. The ED says certain people involved in the case were in contact with Kejriwal about an alcohol policy (which has now been cancelled) that was supposed to give unfair advantages, and that money from this went to the Aam Aadmi Party. These wider accusations are at the center of the money laundering and alcohol policy investigations.
In a separate situation, the lower court said Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others didn’t have a case to answer in a criminal case brought by another agency, stating the case wouldn’t hold up in court. That decision is also being challenged in the High Court. The ED hasn’t yet appealed the acquittal of AAP legislator Amanatullah Khan on a similar charge of missing a request.
Legal questions and stakes before the Delhi High Court
The High Court has to decide several technical and important questions: do requests delivered by email meet legal standards, how much proof is needed to show someone intentionally disobeyed Section 174 of the IPC, and how much power does the ED have under the PMLA to start criminal cases? The outcome will likely change how investigation agencies ask witnesses and people accused of crimes to appear.
If the High Court reverses the lower court’s decision, Kejriwal could face criminal charges again and the case could go back to a lower court. If the acquittal stands, it might limit how agencies use electronic delivery of requests in the future and reinforce the need for strong proof of someone’s intentions and that the request was actually delivered.
Next steps and broader implications to watch
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s hearing will determine if the ED’s appeals will be fully heard or examined further on how they were handled. The results could be that the case is sent back for a new trial, the appeals are dismissed, or instructions are given about what evidence to use and how to deliver requests.
Beyond this specific case, the decision could influence how investigations are done and how enforcement agencies are overseen by the courts, particularly in prominent political investigations. People will be paying attention to the legal logic surrounding delivering requests, proving intention, and finding a balance between the speed of an investigation and following proper procedures.
