| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | Arvind Kejriwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement |
| Introduction | Delhi High Court upheld the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case related to the Aam Aadmi Party’s alleged involvement in the Goa Assembly elections. |
| Factual Background | The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had issued multiple summons to Kejriwal, who allegedly failed to join the investigation. ED contended that Kejriwal was responsible for the affairs of AAP and used proceeds of crime in the election campaign. |
| Legal Issues | Whether a political party can be brought under the purview of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and will Kejriwal could be held liable for the affairs of AAP under Section 70(1) of PMLA. |
| Applicable Law | Section 2(f), 29A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951; Section 70(1) of PMLA. |
| Analysis | The court analyzed the definitions of ‘political party’ and ‘company’ under relevant laws. It observed that Kejriwal could be held liable under PMLA as he was in charge of AAP’s affairs. |
| Conclusion | The court upheld Kejriwal’s arrest, stating that his repeated non-compliance with ED’s summons contributed to his arrest. It allowed Kejriwal to prove at a later stage that he did not have knowledge of the contravention of PMLA by AAP. |
| Current Scenario | Kejriwal is in judicial custody, and the case is ongoing. |
CASE SUMMARY– The Delhi High Court upheld the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case related to the Aam Aadmi Party’s alleged use of proceeds of crime in the Goa Assembly elections. The court held that a political party can be brought under the purview of the PMLA and that Kejriwal, as the in-charge of AAP, could be liable for its affairs under Section 70(1) of the PMLA. Kejriwal’s repeated non-compliance with ED’s summons was considered a contributing factor in his arrest.
SOURCE- INDIA TODAY
Read More–SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZES RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
