Treat me the same as AAP defector MPs: Punjab minister Sanjeev Arora’s plea in HC

Chandigarh: Punjab minister Sanjeev Arora, who was arrested by Enforcement Directorate (ED) has moved Punjab and Haryana high court challenging his arrest, and asking to be treated the same way as two AAP defector MPs were treated.Arora was Punjab's industries and power minister when he was arrested on May 9 under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) following ED searches on his residence and other premises linked to him. On Tuesday, the bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry heard his petition seeking to quash his arrest and adjourned the matter to May 14.Arora's counsel, senior advocate Puneet Bali, argued before the bench: "This is a case of political victimisation. I want to show two orders passed by my lords recently, where my lords have safeguarded them from political vendetta. I am seeking parity."Bali referred to recent proceedings involving Rajya Sabha MPs Sandeep Pathak and Rajinder Gupta, who switched from AAP to BJP on April 24 along with five others. Last week, the same HC bench had granted Gupta protection from coercive action after his industrial unit was inspected by Punjab Pollution Control Board. Pathak, who had moved HC to seek details of two FIRs purportedly registered against him, also got similar relief.Arora's counsel said his arrest was a violation of statutory safeguards and Fundamental Rights.Arora has sought to quash the remand order passed on May 9 by a special court in Gurgaon. His petition says he was the promoter and former chairman of Hampton Sky Realty Ltd (HSRL), formerly known as Ritesh Properties and Industries Ltd, but had resigned from all executive roles upon assuming public office and has since had no role in the day-to-day functioning of the firm. He was a Rajya Sabha member from 2022 to 2025 after which he became a member of the Punjab cabinet.According to the plea, HSRL had commenced export of mobile phones from the 2023–24 fiscal as part of legitimate business expansion, and that all transactions were conducted through proper banking channels and fully documented, including procurement from authorised suppliers, Customs clearance, IMEI-based identification and post-export verification.The petition states that the company had business dealings with UAE-based entities to the extent of ₹102.5 crore, "strictly in the ordinary course of business", and argued that neither Arora nor the firm had any control, shareholding or beneficial interest in these entities beyond commercial transactions.