New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate has issued summons for the fourth time to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for questioning in the Delhi excise policy-linked money laundering case, official sources said on Saturday.
Kejriwal, who is also the national convener of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), has been asked to depose before the agency at its headquarters here on January 18, they said.
According to AAP sources, Kejriwal is supposed to be in Goa for a three-day visit from January 18 to 20 to take stock of his party's preparations for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.
The 55-year-old leader had refused to depose before the ED for the third time on January 3, saying the "non-disclosure and non-response approach" of the agency could not sustain the test of law, equity or justice and its "obstinacy" was tantamount to assuming the role of judge, jury and executioner.
The chief minister was earlier asked to depose on November 2 and December 21 in 2023.
By issuing the fresh notice, the ED has again rejected Kejriwal's contention that the summons issued to him were "not in
consonance with the law" and hence should be withdrawn.
The agency, according to the sources, believes that the summonses sent to Kejriwal were "well within the PMLA procedures and law".
Kejriwal's name has been mentioned multiple times in charge sheets filed by the ED in the case. The agency has said that the accused were in touch with him regarding the preparation of the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22.
The ED is expected to file a fresh supplementary charge sheet in the case and may name the AAP as a "beneficiary" of the alleged kickbacks that were generated through the excise policy.
It is alleged that the Delhi government's excise policy for 2021-22 to grant licences to liquor traders allowed cartelisation and favoured certain dealers who had allegedly paid bribes for it, a charge repeatedly refuted by the AAP.
The policy was subsequently scrapped and Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena recommended a CBI probe, following which the ED registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
1