ED opposes Arvind Kejriwal's plea claiming no sanction in money laundering case

ED's counsel told the court that while the grievance raised is that there's no sanction to prosecute Kejriwal, such sanction is there and will be put on record through an affidavit.

In Short

• Arvind Kejriwal alleged lack of sanction against him in excise case
• Delhi High Court sought ED's reply to Kejriwal's plea
• Trial court took note of prosecution complaint against Kejriwal

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that there is a sanction against former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case after it issued notice to the probe agency seeking its response to a plea filed by the AAP leader.

The ED's reply came days after Kejriwal challenged the trial court taking a note of the probe agency's plea on grounds of lack of sanction to prosecute him. He sought a pause on the trial court proceedings in the case.

The court adjourned the hearing to December after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, told the court that while the grievance raised is that there’s no sanction to prosecute Kejriwal, such sanction is there and will be put on record through an affidavit.

He also requested the court that the ED be granted time to reply to Kejriwal’s plea and his application seeking stay on the trial court proceedings in the money laundering case.

"It's my case that there’s a sanction, but I will have to put it on record through an affidavit. In fact, he should have, he is aware. We will be able to place it on record," SG Mehta submitted.

Senior Advocate Hariharan, appearing for Kejriwal, however, argued that while there was a sanction to prosecute him in the CBI case, in the ED case when the chargesheet was filed there was no sanction which was filed with it.

He added that along with this, there are two more issues he wishes to argue about, including how there was no new material in the 7th chargesheet which named Kejriwal.

While the court was initially inclined to list the case in January 2025, after insistence by Kejriwal’s counsel, the court listed the case for further hearing on December 20.

Kejriwal's plea came a few days after the Supreme Court ruled that the requirement for prior government sanction to prosecute public servants, as mandated under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), also applies to complaints involving money laundering cases.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih had dismissed a plea by the ED, which had challenged a High Court verdict that cancelled the order on the agency's complaint (chargesheet) against two IAS officers. The court held that the provisions of Section 197(1) of the CrPC apply to complaints under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The bench had observed that the purpose of Section 197(1) of the CrPC is to protect public servants from prosecution for actions taken in the course of their duties.

It further remarked that, given the intent behind the section, its application could not be disregarded unless there was a conflicting provision within the PMLA.

However, the court had left the door open for the probe agency to approach the special court in future to take note of the offence against the accused in case the required sanction was granted.