Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi’s Chief Minister has recently defied summons by the ED on alleged corruption charges.

When an individual is summoned by a central investigative agency like the Enforcement Directorate (ED), it is usually in connection with an ongoing investigation or inquiry. Such summons are legally binding, and individuals are expected to comply with them. However, what happens if someone, especially a public figure, chooses to ignore these summons? In this article, we will delve into the legal aspects of ignoring a summons by the ED, using the recent case of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal who defied ED summons, as an example.

The Legal Framework

To understand the consequences of ignoring a summons by the ED, it’s essential to first grasp the legal framework under which these summons are issued. In Kejriwal’s case, he was summoned under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. This section explicitly states that anyone who is summoned must attend in person or through authorized agents, and they are legally bound to state the truth and produce required documents during the examination.

Kejriwal’s Case: A Background

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s refusal to appear before the ED for questioning in the Delhi Excise Policy case has raised several legal questions. This case has its origins in a preliminary complaint filed by the ED, which is akin to a chargesheet, where it was alleged that Kejriwal spoke with one of the main accused, Sameer Mahendru, in a video call and instructed him to continue working with co-accused Vijay Nair, who was the Aam Aadmi Party’s communication in-charge and referred to as “his boy.” Furthermore, the prosecution complaint filed by the ED cited a statement allegedly recorded by Mahendru, claiming that Nair had informed him that “the new excise policy was a brainchild of Kejriwal.”

Consequences of Ignoring an ED Summons:

Now that Kejriwal has declined to join the ED’s investigation, the agency is left with a few options:

1. Issuing Additional Summons:

The ED is likely to respond to Kejriwal’s refusal by issuing fresh notices to him. They can continue to send notices until he finally agrees to join the investigation. However, Kejriwal has challenged the initial summons, stating that they are “vague and motivated” and “unsustainable in law.” This raises the question of whether repeated summons will change his stance.

2. Non-Bailable Warrant:

If the Chief Minister continues to ignore the summons, the ED has the authority to move an application before the relevant court and request the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against him. A non-bailable warrant is a serious legal measure that can lead to the individual’s arrest. It is typically used when there is a perceived risk of the individual evading the legal process.

3. Questioning at Residence and Possible Arrest:

Another option available to the ED is to visit Kejriwal’s residence and conduct the questioning there. If they have concrete evidence and believe an arrest is warranted, they can proceed to arrest him after the questioning. However, it’s important to note that any arrest must be conducted in accordance with the law and due process.

Legal Implications of Ignoring ED Summons

Ignoring a summons from the ED or any central investigative agency can have significant legal consequences. In the case of Kejriwal, these consequences can include:

1. Legal Action:

Kejriwal could face legal action for non-compliance, which may include being declared a “proclaimed offender.” Being declared a proclaimed offender means that the individual is evading the legal process, and it can lead to the attachment of their property and assets.

2. Damage to Reputation:

For public figures like politicians, ignoring such summons can damage their reputation. It can be perceived as an attempt to avoid scrutiny or investigation, which may have political and public relations consequences.

3. Arrest and Detention:

If the ED obtains a non-bailable warrant, the individual may face arrest and detention. This can result in a loss of personal freedom and legal proceedings to secure bail.

4. Legal Costs:

Ignoring summons can lead to prolonged legal battles, which can be financially draining for the individual.

Conclusion

In the case of Arvind Kejriwal’s refusal to appear before the ED, the legal consequences of ignoring a summons are clear. While the ED has the authority to issue repeated summons, if the individual persists in their refusal, the agency can escalate legal action, including the issuance of non-bailable warrants and possible arrest.

It’s important to note that the law applies to all individuals, regardless of their public or private status. Ignoring a summons from a central investigative agency can have far-reaching legal, reputational, and personal consequences. This case highlights the importance of adhering to the legal process and cooperating with investigations to maintain the rule of law and transparency in society.