Sanjay Singh, member of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a case related to the excise policy that was later canceled for the city. On Tuesday he argued before the Delhi High Court that the anti-money laundering law should not be misused as a means of oppression and requested his release in this matter.

The lawyer representing the AAP Rajya Sabha member contended that his arrest was not lawful, had malicious intent, and exemplified an abuse of power. As a result, they urged the court to overturn the trial court's decision to remand him to the custody of the agency.

Senior advocate Vikram Choudhari argued before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act should not be used as a tool for misuse. He emphasized that if such misuse is permitted, it endangers the safety of everyone, and the situation in question exemplifies a clear case of misusing and distorting the authority.

Sanjay Singh, who was apprehended by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on October 4, had approached the high court the previous week to contest his arrest and the subsequent detention in the money laundering case linked to purported irregularities in the discontinued Delhi excise policy for the fiscal year 2021-22.

As per the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), they have claimed that irregularities occurred during the alteration of the Delhi Excise Policy for the year 2021-22, and unjust advantages were granted to license holders. The ED has further alleged that Sanjay Singh played a significant role in shaping and executing the policy, which allegedly provided financial benefits to specific liquor manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers in exchange for monetary considerations.

During the court proceedings on Tuesday, Choudhari argued that the arrest was not justified because there was a failure to adhere to the legal requirements. He further asserted that there was no "necessity" to detain the AAP leader without any prior notice or summons, implying that the arrest was unwarranted and lacked proper legal basis.

The senior lawyer expressed, "I am a well-known public figure, a prominent leader in this country. My arrest is driven by malice, disregarding proper procedure. There is malice both in the law and in the factual aspects of my arrest." This objection was raised in response to Sanjay Singh's arrest in the case, which was allegedly based on a statement provided by approver Dinesh Arora.

Sanjay Singh asserted, "I never received a single summons. On October 4, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) unexpectedly arrived at my residence in the morning and conducted a search that lasted the entire day. It's noteworthy that after giving 13 statements to both the ED and the CBI, Dinesh Arora suddenly made a statement in which he named me."

The counsel further emphasized that the law requires the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to document the specific reasons for arresting the petitioner, which was not accomplished in this case. He pointed out that these grounds for arrest should not be merely a rote recitation of the statutory provisions, implying that there must be valid and substantive justifications for taking such actions.

It was also argued that while the arrest order stated that custodial interrogation was necessary to "unearth" the "scam," the money laundering law does not authorize an arrest unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is guilty of the alleged wrongdoing.

"In the current case, the reasons for the arrest are a mere formality, lacking substance and serving as a disguise," the counsel asserted.

Choudhari also stressed that prior to his arrest, Sanjay Singh had never been identified in any chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the primary case. His name had only been mentioned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in one of its chargesheets, and it was acknowledged as an error.

Following his arrest, Sanjay Singh was remanded to the custody of the agency by the trial court. On October 13, he was subsequently placed in judicial custody until October 27.

Previously, Sanjay Singh's legal representative had contended that the arrest of the "respected leader" was a hastily made decision that did not adhere to the due process of the law. They argued that this action not only warranted the court's condemnation to safeguard his freedom but also to establish a proper legal precedent.

Despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) should not act in a "vindictive" manner, the agency is still "engaging in actions they consider right" and making arrests in a seemingly "unselective" or "indiscriminate" fashion, as per his statement.

The next hearing for this matter is scheduled for October 19, at which point the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is anticipated to present its submissions.