Arvind Kejriwal, the chief minister of Delhi, has given several excuses for not appearing for questioning before the investigating agency regarding its summons for appearance on January 3 in the Delhi excise policy case, including the Rajya Sabha elections, Republic Day celebrations, and the Enforcement Directorate's "non-disclosure" and "non-response" approach. Kejriwal has previously responded to two such summonses by alleging in his letter that the BJP was behind the summons' issuance and that it was unclear if he was being called in the capacity of "a witness or a suspect." Similar to this, Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren turned down seven ED summonses related to a money laundering case.
The Investigating Agency is not required to state whether the individual being summoned is an accused or not, according to any of the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) that govern summonses. The laws are actually ambiguous regarding whether the summons must specify the reason(s) for the person's questioning. In reality, though, ED never fails to bring up the matter in which an individual is being called to testify.
The law provides that failure to appear in response to an ED summons may result in a fine of up to Rs 10,000 and the application of Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, which imposes a one-month jail sentence and/or a fine of Rs 500. Obtaining non-bailable warrants against the person who is refusing to comply with a summons is the alternative legal option. This would not be simple, according to insiders, as the majority of people who refuse summonses—Kejriwal and Soren included—give written explanations for their absence. The ED would have to persuade the judge that the person in question is implicated prima facie and that their non-cooperation was intentional. Moreover, court rulings have maintained that Section 50 prohibits the ED from making an arrest of someone it has summoned.
