‘Destroyed Over 170 Mobiles in Scam Period’: ED Files Affidavit in Supreme Court Against Arvind Kejriwal’s Plea Challenging Arrest in Excise Policy Case

New Delhi, April 24: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Wednesday submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court in response to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest in connection with a money laundering case related to the alleged excise policy scam. In the affidavit, the ED has claimed that Kejriwal's arrest was prompted by extensive evidence tampering, including the destruction of approximately 170 mobile phones during the 'scam' period.

The agency also stated that Kejriwal had evaded interrogation despite being summoned nine times. Moreover, it refuted allegations of politically motivated timing for Kejriwal's arrest, saying that it was based on substantial evidence and did not compromise the integrity of elections. Excise Policy Case: Delhi Court Grants Time to Arvind Kejriwal To File Response in Case of Evading ED Summonses

The agency said that the arrest of an accused individual, regardless of their stature, is justified when supported by evidence. Furthermore, the affidavit argued against granting immunity from arrest to politicians facing criminal charges, stating that this would undermine the integrity of the electoral process. It said that the arrest of individuals based on evidence does not violate the principles of free and fair elections. Excise Policy Case: Delhi High Court To Hear Arvind Kejriwal’s Plea Challenging ED Summonses on May 15

The ED arrested CM Kejriwal on March 21 after questioning him for over two hours at his official residence in Delhi. It has termed CM Kejriwal the "kingpin and the key conspirator" of the alleged excise scam in collusion with other ministers of the Delhi government, AAP leaders, and other persons. A Delhi court had, on Tuesday, extended till May 7 the judicial custody of Kejriwal and BRS leader K. Kavitha in the case. Special Judge Kaveri Baweja of the Rouse Avenue Court had passed the orders upon the expiry of the previously granted judicial custody.