Delhi Rouse Avenue Court on Thursday issued summons to CM Arvind Kejriwal in connection with a plea lodged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) claiming that he was not appearing before the agency despite its summons in the money laundering case connected to Delhi Excise Policy scam.

Divya Malhotra, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) of Rouse Avenue Court issued the summons and asked Arvind Kejriwal to remain present before the Court on March 16.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a fresh complaint case against Arvind Kejriwal on March 6 arguing that he was summoned a number of times to appear before the probe agency for questioning in relation to the alleged Delhi Excise Policy scam but he has refused to comply.

The fresh complaint was registered after the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) National Convenor refused to appear before the investigation agency on March 4 for the eighth time. The Delhi Chief Minister was first summoned on November 2, 2023. Arvind Kejriwal had termed the ED’s summons as illegal and politically motivated. This is the Enforcement Directorate’s second complaint case against Kejriwal.

The federal anti-money laundering agency had on February 3, 2024 also filed a case against Arvind Kejriwal. He has been issued summons by the court in that case and is likely to appear personally on March 16.

The ED’s investigation into money laundering contentions stems from a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on August 17, 2022 in connection with alleged irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case was registered on a complaint made by Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena on July 20, 2022. 

Subsequently, the nodal agency registered a case on the money laundering angle against the accused persons on August 22, 2022. AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh are already in custody in the same case.

By Vikram Kilpady

Meditation has been around for at least 2 millennia or more in India and the world. Besides a blip in the 1960s, it has not been as popular with the “IT” crowd the way it is in the 21st century, thanks to various apps on mobile phones. Headspace, for one, is the most popular. Now the modern crowd lets its hair down and meditates with such apps. Somewhat similar to this is the craze for apps among governments, both central and state. Among the top reasons for an app, the technology friendly cover is the most important. So we had Co-Win and Aarogya Setu, and a thousand others bloomed as well.

The latest to join the app frenzy is the Uttar Pradesh Prosecution Department (UPPD), which pleads criminal cases for the state. The UPPD has developed an app with a third party to keep track of crimes in the state’s 75 districts. Of course, it won’t be accessible to you and me, but only to the department’s joint directors and the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO). The CMO will be monitoring it every 15 days to keep district-wise tabs on progress in investigations. The app aims to scan specific crimes like POCSO Act cases, crimes against women, and those under the Gangsters Act and the Cow Slaughter Act. A report quoted Additional DG (Prosecution) Dipesh Juneja saying the app became necessary since it was getting difficult to monitor all 75 districts. The department’s joint directors will undergo training to best utilise the app, he said.

Before the app, data would be collated in excel sheets, and a person had to be assigned the work of entering the information from all the districts. Now it will be on the app, the ADG said. Joint directors will get the number of cases, and their progress, whether in investigation or in court, will be digitally fed in. It is but obvious that freedom from data entry will not be available to the unfortunate persons who had been doing the excel sheets. So, the back office operations will remain the same, with pen and paper and files upon files in each district whose data will then be loaded onto the app. Among the app’s highlights is its way of monitoring witnesses in cases. The app enables messages to be sent to witnesses a day before they have to be in court to depose. As one has read, witnesses form the bulk of the prosecution’s headache. Those familiar with courtroom detective fiction of the Perry Mason or John Grisham kind would know how cases can collapse if witnesses recant or sing a different tune, turning a case on its head.

Right through the first and the now current second term of the Yogi Adityanath government, law and order has been given the highest priority in the state, as reports say. It has been the Adityanath government’s go-to display to contrast with the previous regimes, under whom it was said to be far worse. Noida residents will speak for the fact that police patrols zip by at all times of day and night, keeping the city safe and arriving quickly on the scene in case of a conflict, or an accident, or a crime. If one goes by the data available with the National Crime Records Bureau for 2021 (the one for 2022 is due this year), it does paint a rosy picture for Uttar Pradesh. Apart from reporting only one instance of communal violence, the data saw UP in the lower quadrant of states with various types of criminal cases. UP was ranked 23rd in cases of rape with 2,845 cases and 24th in murders with a case total of 3,717. Similarly, the state was ranked 28th in crimes against children and 36th in kidnappings for ransom.

The UPPD app’s larger motive is to bring digital access to crime solving and prosecution. The report on the app has quoted the ADG quite diligently, but has not asked whether the app’s data will be saved on servers in India or elsewhere. If memory serves me right, there was some brouhaha over the last couple of years about privacy concerns of data saved in China. That neighbour offers cheaper options and at an unimaginable scale. Let us assume that the UPPD app data will be in servers in India or Singapore. India’s United Payments Interface system has become the gold standard worldwide for other countries to implement. Several countries, including the USA, Germany and France have commended the UPI system, as reports note with great pride.

That may be one tech winner we have on our phones. The UPPD app, however, begs one question: will it help cut down crime? The app, as most apps are meant to, will help keep track of incidents like the prime time murder of Atique Ahmed and his brother Ashraf. The officials can keep track of witnesses and the investigation into the case and how it is proceeding in court. But the app is no Robocop or Batman to cause crime and criminals in Uttar Pradesh to slink away in the dark, to furtive stations far away and desolate.

Take the imperiousness with which Atique Ahmed was shot dead in Prayagraj while mediapersons were speaking to him. The killers were also disguised as a news TV crew, but the laxity of the police personnel accompanying Atique on April 15, 2023, certainly deserves place in the Guinness Book as the best keystone cop moment. Before his transfer to Uttar Pradesh, the slain underworld don had moved court several times, including the Supreme Court, pleading that his life would be at risk if he were to be moved back from Sabarmati Jail in Gujarat. But the number one law and order state couldn’t protect him, as judges noted after the murder was televised live, as it so happened.

One facet that will predate the app is whether UP Police will register every case that comes to them. In instances of rape, the police are bound to file a case when the survivor/victim in rape makes a complaint, even if the perpetrator is close to the local bigwig or is, in fact, the area’s legislator. The recent past reminds us that if the word of the Unnao rape victim and her family had been taken at face value, they may have survived the strongarm of the convicted, former BJP MLA Kuldeep Sengar and his minions. Just like the UPPD app, will there also be an app for citizens to file FIRs without going to a police station, since without an FIR prosecution or non-prosecution of a crime is of no consequence?

Or will there be an app to find out if all police stations in the state take down mandatory FIRs, as the law says they should? Forget apps, the Supreme Court has not been able to coax states to install CCTVs in all the country’s police stations. If such CCTVs were around, the gruesome custodial murder of P Jayaraj and his son Bennicks would not have taken place in Tamil Nadu’s Sathankulam, Thoothukudi district. And how many more unreported deaths could be avoided? We aren’t even talking about the encounters which happen to the high and mighty of UP’s underworld.

Remember don Vikas Dubey, who tried to escape from a UP Police van and was shot dead in July 2020? The story was convenient, the don tried to escape when the van overturned, despite its evading TV crews chasing the motorcade. In Atique’s case, TV crews were even filming the don taking a leak along the road. A necessary lesson in public deportment was imparted, the people were shown that big dons were being “encountered”, a popular form of extra-judicial murder that is enough for its audience to sing the paeans that award law and order brownie points.

The apps, as we do know, are not robots and are incapable of movement. A robot policeman may have been useful in Hathras, where police cremated the rape victim despite the presence of media crews. Some cameras turned off at police hectoring, but one journalist got the scoop of her life by videographing the burning pyre. Yes, a robot cop would have helped in Hathras. The UPPD app is at best a token app for keeping tabs on existing cases. The government should also keep an eye on laggard police stations where cases only pile up with no headway made in any of them. But how else can justice be served where police keep earnest track of probes, instead of averting them by curbing crime to begin with? Like those people plugged into meditation apps twice a day for 20 minutes at a time minimum, it is not easy to sit still and focus on one’s breath while a zillion other things jump into attention. But yes, digital rocks!

The bickering between Delhi L-G Anil Baijal and the state government has now spilled over to the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors representing the Delhi police in the court case over the riots that took place in February

By Gautam Mishra

The AAP-led Delhi government and the L-G have once again locked horns. This time it is over the appointment of special public prosecutors representing the Delhi police in the Delhi riots case and the constant intervention by the centre in it. The state government has insisted that only lawyers selected by it should be appointed and not those recommended by the police or the centre.

Rajya Sabha AAP MP Sanjay Singh stated that “… independent investigation by the police and a free and fair trial are a must. The L-G and the central government are insisting on the appointment of a panel of special public prosecutors chosen by the central government. This is happening at a time when there are very serious allegations on the response of Delhi police to these riots as well as how the investigation process is going on”.

The Delhi police had written to L-G Anil Baijal over the appointment of six senior advocates who would argue the case on its behalf. The L-G sent the letter to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to take a decision on it. The letter reportedly states: “Since the difference of opinion still persists, I would request the chief minister to expeditiously refer the matter to the Council of Ministers under Rule 49 of TBR of GNCTD, 1992 with Section 45 (c) of the Government of NCT Act, 1991. In view of urgency and sensitivity of matter, it is requested that the decision of Cabinet be communicated expeditiously, preferably within a week.”

AAP leader and MLA Raghav Chadha too said that under the law, specifically the CrPC, it was clear that the public prosecutor was a representative of the State and not the police. “Delhi Police being the investigating agency, therefore, should have no role in deciding the lawyers,” he said. However, under the Constitution, the L-G of Delhi has special powers to overturn any decision of the elected government, though it has to be exercised in very rare cases.

Earlier, the Delhi High Court had taken note of clashes between senior law officers in the Court over the issue of representing Delhi police. This has been going on since the first hearing in the riots case before Justice S Muralidhar, who was later shifted to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Similar heated arguments also took place between Rahul Mehra, standing counsel for Government of NCT Delhi (GNCTD), and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

Mehra has always taken the stand that as per the law, it is only on the aid and advice of the council of ministers of GNCTD that the power to appoint a special public prosecutor or special counsel (under Section 24(8) CrPC) can be exercised by the L-G. He has said that the L-G has no independent power to make such appointments.

In a hearing on July 2, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aman Lekhi stated that it was a matter of constitutional interpretation and cannot be limited to a few lines of that judgment. Every judgment, he said, must be read with reference to its facts. While comparing the judgments cited in the present case, he said that the judgment of the Bench of the Supreme Court on February 14, 2019, was not a judgment where a law officer was appearing, but where an advocate was appointed for prosecution. But he said he was currently proceeding for cancellation, not prosecution.

Lekhi also added that matters which fell outside the powers of the legislative assembly don’t require consultation of the council of ministers. He said a law officer is a designated senior. Amit Mahajan is the lawyer on record and he can engage any senior or law officer to appear, he added. Lekhi submitted that the bench judgment only dealt with the state government and not with the right of the centre to make an appointment. The centre has the discretion to appoint any lawyer it chooses in matters which are beyond the competence of the state government and the state government cannot interfere.

However, Mehra opposed this and said the case was before this Court, making it the appropriate court. He said: “Under which provision have they filed this petition? They have impersonated the state. Can the central government do anything? Are we still in a democracy? The appropriate court today is this court….All I am saying is right now you have only heard diversionary tactics of the Central Government lawyer. They are not doing any charity here. Everything that Mr Lekhi has stated, all endeavour has been made to move where they have no basis, no leg to stand on. Everything has been looked into by the division and constitution bench in the judgments, maybe they haven’t been looked into in the way Mr Lekhi would want them to be looked into.”

He added: “Power cannot be might, might cannot be a right. With all humility I will show Milords, that center has no case. This way CrPC will be blown into winds. We’re in a federal country, you cannot enter in these areas.”

However, the Court stated that the counsel who had filed the plea did not show any document that he was appointed by the L-G to represent the probe agency in the matter. The matter was raised again when the Delhi government counsel informed the Court that the centre has no power to file this petition against the June 20 order of the trial court. He stated that the counsel have to show the grant of authorisation to file the plea as the L-G can’t approve and give clearance without the aid of the council of ministers of the Delhi government.

Sadly, the Delhi government and L-G tussle has been a prolonged one and on various issues. In 2018, Baijal found fault with a panel of eminent lawyers that the Delhi government had constituted to fight cases on its behalf in the High Court as well as to give a legal opinion. The state government had constituted a panel of 13 senior advocates in 2017 which included the likes of Indira Jaising, Colin Gonsalves, Rebecca John, Anoop George Chaudhari, Sanjay Hegde and Anand Grover. However, the principal secretary to the L-G addressed a letter to the chief secretary of Delhi, Anshu Prakash, saying that the empanelment was done without prior approval of the L-G.

On March 12, 2020, an order was passed by the Union Home Ministry stating: “With respect to the appointment of legal officers to represent cases of Delhi Police, it is decided that in respect of those cases which do not fall within the ambit of Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) e.g. Public Interest Litigations (PILs), Writ Petitions (WPs), etc., the following is ordered with immediate effect:

“i. Lt. Governor (LG) Delhi may at his own discretion, appoint Law officers(s), and/or other Senior Advocate(s)/Advocate(s), to assist such Law Officer(s) to represent Delhi Police/Government in Constitutional Courts i.e. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.” The order further stated: “In the Supreme Court, Delhi Police can be represented by any Law officer(s) along with Advocates(s) to assist the Law officer(s) so appointed.” It is obvious that this war of words between the state government and the L-G will continue.

A division bench presided by Justice Manmohan and Justice Sanjeev Narula of Delhi High Court while conducting hearing through video conferencing noted that the Delhi Government shall ensure that all Fair Price shops shall display information regarding the entitlement of food grains in accordance with provisions of Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order.

The petitioner raised the grievance before the bench that the distribution of pulses should have started from 1^st April 2020. He further added that the “Fair Price Shops are not displaying information regarding the entitlement of food grains in accordance with provisions of the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015.”

However, the state government has started distributing the pulses according to the scheme after the filing of this petition, the petitioner informed the Court.

The Court while disposing of the petition directed the Delhi Government that the pulses shall be distributed for 3 months with effect from 16^th May 2020.

Read the order here;

-India Legal Bureau