Delhi High Court heard Arvind Kejriwal’s plea in the excise policy case on Monday. Meanwhile, Kejriwal presented his arguments personally before the judge. During the hearing, he claimed agencies tried to frame him as corrupt.
He said the trial court had already acquitted him earlier. Moreover, he insisted that CBI has no concrete evidence in this case.
Kejriwal Questions Investigation and Evidence
While addressing the court, he said the entire case relies on approver statements. Additionally, he stated that ED and CBI conducted multiple raids without any recovery. Therefore, he argued that allegations lack factual backing.
He also filed a plea seeking a change of judge in the case. He submitted a recusal request before Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma.
Claims of Prejudgment and Court Observations
Kejriwal said accusations portrayed him as involved in money laundering. Furthermore, he claimed statements suggested everyone became labeled as corrupt. He added that such conclusions appeared premature.
He referred to Manish Sisodia’s case during the argument. He said only three hearings took place before conclusions emerged. Moreover, he said no chargesheet or formal request existed at that stage.
Debate Over Previous Court Decisions
He argued that the Supreme Court later set aside that decision. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta disagreed with this claim. He said the order was not dismissed but maintained.
Kejriwal responded that he could verify and return with clarity. Meanwhile, he pointed out that bail was eventually granted in that matter.
Focus on Trial Court Findings
He stated that the trial court found Sisodia completely innocent. Therefore, he questioned whether earlier opinions could change now. He also argued that prosecution claims were already rejected earlier.
He referred to a March 9 order and called it one-sided. Additionally, he questioned how conclusions formed without full hearing.
Final Arguments on Lack of Evidence
Kejriwal said agencies used approver deals and later made arrests. He added that individuals named others after bargaining during investigations. Moreover, he claimed findings already suggested no crime occurred.
He said no bribe, illegal earnings, or money transfer to Goa happened. Furthermore, he insisted that CBI built the case only on statements. He argued that questioning these statements weakens the entire case.
He also mentioned that a revision petition led to action against ED earlier. He said no written request existed at that time. However, he claimed an oral request resulted in the order.
He added that no proper hearing occurred before that decision. Later, ED filed another petition, and he said the court showed leniency. Meanwhile, he stated that he still stands as an accused in the ED case.
