Today, counsel representing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal argued before the Supreme Court that his arrest is unlawful. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi pointed out that Mr. Kejriwal's name was absent from 10 documents, including CBI chargesheets and ED prosecution complaints, until December 2023.

Singhvi emphasized that the arrest took place at Mr. Kejriwal's residence without prior questioning or recording of his statement, as mandated by anti-money laundering laws.

"Power to arrest is not the same as a need to arrest. Guilt has to be made out, not mere suspicion... This is also the threshold in Section 45 PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act)," he added.

Mr. Kejriwal has petitioned the highest court, challenging his arrest and seeking interim release. He contends that since his arrest was unlawful, his detention thereafter is also unjustified.

When questioned about why Mr. Kejriwal hasn't filed a bail petition in the trial court, Mr. Singhvi informed the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta that they opted to approach the Supreme Court due to its "wider jurisdiction."

After the Delhi High Court declined to provide him with protection, the Enforcement Directorate arrested Mr. Kejriwal on March 21. Presently, the Chief Minister is detained in Tihar jail. Mr. Kejriwal contends that the court's denial of protection should not serve as grounds for his arrest.

"The denial in interim of my bail cannot be ground to come to my home for arrest. The arrest did not happen for 1.5 years. They arrested me from my home. They did not record Section 50 statement there," the counsel said.

In his affidavit, Mr. Kejriwal has denounced his arrest as politically motivated, alleging that it was orchestrated to unfairly benefit the ruling party during the ongoing general election. He contends that the case exemplifies the Central government's misuse of investigative agencies to target and intimidate political adversaries.

The Enforcement Directorate has put forth the argument that Mr. Kejriwal's arrest was warranted due to his "complete lack of cooperation." According to their affidavit, Mr. Kejriwal consistently evaded interrogation by failing to appear before the investigating officer despite being summoned on nine occasions. Furthermore, during the recording of his statement under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), he was described as evasive and uncooperative.