No, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal is not representing himself in Supreme Court

By: Annet Preethi Furtado
March 22 2024

Share Article: facebook logo twitter logo linkedin logo
No, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal is not representing himself in Supreme Court

Social media posts claim that Arvind Kejriwal is representing himself in Supreme Court. (Source: X/Modified by Logically Facts)


The Verdict False

CM Kejriwal, who was arrested on the night of March 21, is not representing himself in court. He is being represented by senior advocate A.M. Singhvi.

Claim ID 72febcfd

On March 21, 2024, Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi and the convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on charges of corruption and money laundering linked to the formulation and execution of the Delhi government's excise policy for 2021-22, which was subsequently revoked.

What's the claim?

Ahead of the scheduled Supreme Court hearing on March 22, numerous users on the X platform circulated an AI-generated image portraying Kejriwal in a suit, seated at what appears to be a court bench, with two individuals standing behind him. The image featured a screenshot of purported case details resembling the format of the Supreme Court of India. The image indicated case details with Diary Number 13598/2024, filed on March 21, 2024, at 08:57 p.m., with "ARVIND KEJRIWAL" as the petitioner and the petitioner's advocate highlighted in red as "PETITIONER IN-PERSON."

This image has gone viral with claims that Kejriwal has opted to represent himself in the Supreme Court as a lawyer, and it was also suggested that PM Modi would 'regret Kejriwal attracting national attention' as a result of this decision.

Screenshots of X posts. (Source: X/Screenshot/modified by Logically Facts)

One post sharing the viral image has garnered over 121,000 views at the time of writing. Archived versions of the post and similar others can be viewed here, here, here, here, and here.

However, Kejriwal did not represent himself; he is being represented by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Additionally, Kejriwal opted to withdraw his plea before the apex court against his arrest by the ED. His advocate, Manu Singhvi, informed the top court on Friday morning that he would argue the case before the magistrate regarding Kejriwal’s remand when the latter would be produced before Delhi’s Rouse Avenue court.

What do reports about Kejriwal’s arrest say?

None of the news reports on Kejriwal's arrest and case stated that he chose to represent himself as a lawyer in the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, on March 22, Kejriwal withdrew his petition challenging his arrest by the ED.

According to a report by The Indian Express on Kejriwal's plea withdrawal, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, informed Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta that his client preferred to present his case before the trial court. Singhvi stated, "As the remand is clashing, decided to withdraw it and fight that remand… Otherwise there will be arguments of remand and then high court and then…" and the bench approved his request.

Before Kejriwal's arrest on March 22, a division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain had declined to pass any order granting interim relief on Kejriwal's plea, asking why he had not appeared before the probe agency in response to the summons.

Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that the ED's summons lacked clarity regarding the capacity in which Kejriwal was called to appear, accusing the agency of attempting to create an uneven playing field ahead of the Lok Sabha elections, reports The News Minute.

Furthermore, on the afternoon of March 22, Kejriwal was produced in Rouse Avenue court by the ED, which sought 10-day custody of the AAP chief. His case was once again argued by Manu Singhvi, alongside senior advocates Ramesh Gupta and Vikram Chaudhary.

These developments confirm that Kejriwal is not representing himself but is instead being represented by Manu Singhvi.

Discrepancies in the viral case details

On the Supreme Court’s website, we searched for case number '13598' and found that the case titled "ARVIND KEJRIWAL vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT" was indeed filed on March 21, 2024, at 08:57 p.m., as indicated by the image in the viral post.

However, the petitioners listed in the case diary on the site include "1 ARVIND KEJRIWAL S/D/W/Thru:- G.R. KEJRIWAL, 6, FLAG STAFF ROAD, CIVIL LINES, CENTRAL*, DELHI" contrary to just "Arvind Kejriwal" as seen in the viral image.


Comparison of viral case details with those on the Supreme Court of India's website. (Source: X/Supreme Court of India/Screenshot/Modified by Logically Facts)

Furthermore, the diary notes the name of the petitioner's advocate as ‘Vivek Jain’, as opposed to "PETITIONER IN-PERSON," in the viral image. Jain is the advocate on record in this case, as corroborated by several sources.

Logically Facts contacted Jain, who said, “Dr. Singhvi is a senior advocate and they don’t file petitions. I am an advocate on record and entitled to file matters before SC." He added that the information that Kejriwal is representing himself is incorrect, stating that Manu Singhvi is representing the Delhi chief minister.

The money laundering case

The ED's money laundering investigation stems from a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on August 17, 2022, regarding purported irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22. It is alleged that political leaders, including former Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha, conspired with Kejriwal, as well as AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, during the policy's formulation stage.

Kejriwal's arrest on March 21 night came just hours after the Delhi High Court had refused to grant him any interim protection from coercive action.

The verdict

Delhi's Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal, has not opted to represent himself as a lawyer in the Supreme Court. Instead, he is being represented by senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for him in court on Friday, 22 March. Furthermore, the details of the case shared in the viral post appear to be altered, differing from the genuine information on the Supreme Court's website.

Read this fact-check in:

English , অসমীয়া

Would you like to submit a claim to fact-check or contact our editorial team?

Global Fact-Checks Completed

We rely on information to make meaningful decisions that affect our lives, but the nature of the internet means that misinformation reaches more people faster than ever before