New Delhi | Special Correspondent: Arun Sharma

Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has been acquitted by a Delhi court in a case related to repeatedly skipping summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), with the court holding that the agency failed to follow due legal procedure while serving the notices.


The court observed that summons sent through email do not constitute valid service under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) or the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). In the absence of proper legal service, the allegation of “wilful disobedience” against Kejriwal could not be sustained.


Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Paras Dalal noted that the ED was unable to establish that Kejriwal had intentionally disobeyed the summons. The court underlined that the notices were neither served personally on the accused nor through legally recognised “extended” or “substituted” modes, even after exercising due diligence.


Drawing a clear distinction between “non-appearance” and “intentional non-appearance”, the magistrate stated that mere absence does not automatically amount to wilful disobedience. The court further pointed out that the agency made no serious effort to verify why Kejriwal did not appear before it.


The court also took into account that Kejriwal was serving as the Chief Minister at the relevant time and enjoyed his fundamental right to movement. In such circumstances, the burden was on the ED to ensure lawful service of summons, which it failed to do.


The case stems from the ongoing investigation into the alleged Delhi excise policy irregularities, originally registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2022 following a complaint by the Lieutenant Governor. The ED had claimed that a total of nine summons were issued to Kejriwal, alleging that he raised frivolous objections to avoid joining the probe.


Legal experts say the verdict sends a strong message to investigating agencies on the importance of adhering strictly to statutory procedures. The ruling is also being seen as a reaffirmation of the principle that enforcement actions must conform to the rule of law, irrespective of the stature of the accused.