The Court said that Kejriwal, instead of using the meetings for discussing litigation strategy with his lawyers, was using it for giving directions to be passed on to the Water Minister.
A Delhi court on Wednesday rejected a plea by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal seeking permission to hold five meetings a week with his legal team instead of two meetings which he was allowed earlier.
Special Judge Kaveri Baweja of Rouse Avenue court said that Kejriwal, instead of using the meetings for discussing litigation strategy with his lawyers, was using it for giving directions to be passed on to the Water Minister.
“The Applicant has failed to satisfy this court that he has been using the two permitted legal meetings per week solely for the purpose of discussing the pending litigations with his counsels. The status report/note filed by the Investigating Agency indicates that the Applicant had dictated certain directions for being passed on to the Water Minister, to one of his lawyers (whose name he refused to disclose to the Investigating Agency) during the course of a legal meeting,” the Court noted in its order.
It thus appears that Kejriwal is not even utilizing the permitted two legal interviews per week with his counsel solely for discussing his pending litigation and has rather used the allotted time for purposes other than legal interviews, the Court concluded while dismissing the plea.
Kejriwal is currently under judicial custody in Tihar jail after he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case connected to the Delhi excise policy scam.
Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21 and then produced before Judge Baweja, who initially remanded him to ED custody till March 28.
The ED’s custody over him was later extended till April 1. Thereafter, he was sent to judicial custody till April 15.
In response to Kejriwal’s application for five legal meetings a week, judge Baweja also noted that even Kejriwal had said that there are about 30-35 litigations regarding which he needs to have consultations and discussions with his counsels.
However, there does not appear to be any objective criteria for assessing whether five meetings with his lawyers per week would be sufficient to address the concern of the accused or that two meetings, which are permitted as per Jail Rules, would be sufficient, the Court said.
“In the absence of any such objective criteria for assessment, the prayer of the applicant for five legal interviews with his lawyers per week not only appears to be whimsical but also seems to have been made without any statistical basis or objective standards for assessment,” the Court said.
