The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 other accused in the Delhi excise policy case to respond to a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking the removal of certain remarks made by a trial court against the agency. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on March 19.
The direction came from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma while hearing the ED’s plea challenging observations made in a trial court order that had discharged all 23 accused in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case related to the Delhi liquor policy.
During the hearing, the High Court noted that the remarks in the trial court’s order appeared to be general observations rather than comments specifically linked to the case. The judge orally observed that the trial court judge seemed to have expressed a broader view about the investigation, stating that such remarks were not necessarily made in the context of the case itself.
Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju, appearing for the ED, argued that the trial court had made adverse statements about the agency in proceedings where it was not even a party. He submitted that the trial judge had no justification to pass comments concerning the ED and claimed that the agency had been criticised without being given an opportunity to present its position.
Raju further urged the High Court to clarify that those remarks would not influence any other legal proceedings. According to him, the observations could potentially be cited against the ED in other cases despite the agency having no involvement in the specific proceedings before the trial court.
Senior counsel representing some of the accused opposed the ED’s position, arguing that the remarks referred to by the agency were being taken out of context. They maintained that the observations could not be interpreted in isolation or in a piecemeal manner.
After hearing the submissions, the High Court directed the accused persons to file their responses to the ED’s plea. The court also noted that the trial court’s order discharging the accused had already been challenged by the CBI.
In its petition, the ED contended that the trial court’s remarks relating to its investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were unrelated to the CBI case before it. The agency said it had not been a party to those proceedings and had not been given an opportunity to respond before the observations were made.
The ED argued that allowing such sweeping remarks to remain on record would cause serious prejudice to the agency and the public at large. It also described the comments as a case of judicial overreach and sought the expunging of the paragraphs dealing with the ED’s independent investigation under the PMLA.
The controversy stems from the February 27 order of the trial court, which discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 21 others in the excise policy case investigated by the CBI. In that order, the trial court criticised the prosecution’s case, stating that it could not withstand judicial scrutiny and stood discredited.
The court had concluded that the alleged conspiracy was merely a speculative construct based on conjecture and lacked any admissible evidence. It further held that compelling the accused to undergo a full criminal trial in the absence of legally admissible material would not serve the ends of justice.
The trial court also expressed concerns about prolonged incarceration based on provisional allegations, warning that such a process could effectively become punitive. It observed that the issue had constitutional implications where individual liberty could be endangered by the invocation of the PMLA.
The order also referred to the stringent twin conditions for bail under the money laundering law, noting that these requirements could lead to extended pre-trial detention.
Additionally, the trial court highlighted that under established legal principles, the offence of money laundering cannot exist independently without a valid predicate offence. It said the prevailing practice in some cases appeared to reverse this settled position.
While acknowledging that the objectives of the PMLA were legitimate and important, the trial court had emphasised that statutory powers must operate within the framework of constitutional safeguards.
The High Court will now consider the ED’s request to remove the disputed remarks after receiving responses from the accused. The case is slated for further hearing on March 19.
