The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the response of former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal regarding a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The federal agency is challenging a trial court’s decision to acquit the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader in two separate cases related to his alleged non-compliance with summonses in the excise policy investigation.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued the notice after noting that Kejriwal did not appear for the proceedings despite being served advance notice. The court has scheduled the next hearing for April 29.
The legal battle stems from complaints filed by the ED in a trial court, alleging that the then-chief minister “intentionally omitted” to obey legal summonses. The agency claimed that Kejriwal failed to respond to multiple notices or attend the probe, instead raising “frivolous objections” to deliberately avoid participation.
The ED further alleged that other accused individuals were in contact with Kejriwal during the formulation of the now-scrapped excise policy. The agency contends this policy was designed to provide “undue benefits” to certain parties, which in turn allegedly resulted in kickbacks to the AAP.
The High Court’s intervention follows a January 22 order by a trial court which ruled in favor of Kejriwal. In that decision, the trial court observed that the ED had failed to prove that the AAP leader “intentionally disobeyed” the summonses issued to him.
In a related but separate blow to the central agencies, the trial court had also discharged Kejriwal, former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, and 21 others in the CBI’s version of the liquor policy case on February 27. The trial court at that time stated that the CBI’s case was “wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny” and was “discredited in its entirety.” A plea by the CBI against that discharge remains pending before the High Court.
Arvind Kejriwal is currently on interim bail in the money laundering case. The Supreme Court has previously referred critical questions regarding the “need and necessity of arrest” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to a larger bench for deeper consideration.
The High Court’s decision to hear the ED’s latest challenge adds a new chapter to the protracted legal dispute over the defunct 2021-22 excise policy.
