Today, former Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal approached the Delhi High Court, contesting the maintainability of the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the alleged liquor policy scam.

Kejriwal has challenged the trial court's order dated September 17, which rejected his plea against the summons issued to him based on the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) complaint.

A single-judge bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has issued a notice on the plea and sought the ED's response.

Senior Advocate Rebecca John, representing Kejriwal, argued that when summons were issued to the former Delhi Chief Minister by an Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer of the Assistant Director rank, the complaint could not have been filed by another ED officer of the same rank. She contended that such an action is prohibited under Section 195 of the CrPC.

Section 195 of CrPC states that the complaint has to be filed in writing by the public servant concerned or any other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

“He has served the period for which they (ED) can punish me. Three summons were issued by one Joginder who is Assistant Director of ED. The complaint was filed by another Assistant Director (Sandeep Sharma)…. The challenge is with respect to whether he could have filed the complaint,” John said.

She further added that it was only Joginder, the officer who issued the summons, who could have filed the complaint, especially since he had neither resigned from his position nor was unavailable to do so.

“Either Joginder could have filed it or his superior. If the public servant who is Joginder had in some way demitted office, then the person of his co equal rank could have filed it. If Joginder was available, under what provision in law he transferred the power to Sandeep Sharma? The petition is limited to maintainability of complaint when officer concerned was available,” she said.

The Enforcement Directorate's (ED) special counsel, Zoheb Hossain, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of Kejriwal's plea. He argued that the petition was, in essence, a second revision petition filed under the guise of Section 482 of the CrPC, which is barred by law. Hossain also contended that the grounds raised in the current petition were identical to those presented before the trial court.

However, the High Court issued a notice on the plea and scheduled the next hearing for December 19. Kejriwal has been granted bail in both the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) cases related to the liquor policy scam.