The Delhi High Court has given a final chance to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others to respond to the ED’s plea seeking removal of adverse trial court remarks in the excise policy case. The Court warned that if no reply is filed, the right to respond will be closed and arguments will be heard on April 22.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday gave a final opportunity to former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, his former deputy Manish Sisodia and other accused to respond to a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate seeking removal of certain remarks made against the agency by the trial court in the Delhi liquor policy case.
The case was heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who noted that except one accused, none of the respondents had filed their reply even after taking time earlier. The Court therefore made it clear that this was the last chance for them to file their response.
The Court stated,
“Last opportunity is granted to file reply, failing which the right to file reply will close. Arguments will be heard on the next date of hearing. List on April 22,”
making it clear that the matter will now be heard on April 22 regardless of whether replies are filed or not.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, told the Court that only Vinod Chauhan had filed a reply and the other respondents had not submitted any response to the petition.
Earlier, on March 19, the High Court had granted time till April 2 to Kejriwal and other respondents to file their replies to the ED’s plea. The ED had argued that replies were not even necessary because the plea only challenged the remarks made by the trial court against the ED, and those remarks did not affect the discharge of the accused.
In its petition, the ED argued that the trial court made unnecessary and unrelated remarks about the Enforcement Directorate even though the agency was not a party to the proceedings and was not given a chance to present its side. The agency said,
“If such sweeping, unguided, bald observations are permitted to stand … grave and irreparable prejudice would be caused to the public at large as well as the petitioner,”
The ED further argued in its plea,
“Therefore, the aforesaid paragraphs which concern the investigation independently conducted by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA deserve to be expunged as it amounts to a clear case of judicial overreach…,”
The High Court had earlier, on March 10, asked Kejriwal and others to respond to the ED’s plea.
This matter arises from the February 27 trial court order in which Kejriwal, Sisodia and others were discharged in the Delhi liquor policy case. The trial court had made strong observations while discharging the accused and had severely criticised the case filed by the CBI.
The trial court had said that the case against the accused was weak and not supported by legally admissible evidence. The court had observed that forcing the accused to face a full criminal trial without proper evidence would be unjust. The trial court also raised serious concerns about the misuse of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the issue of long jail time before trial.
The trial court had warned that keeping accused persons in jail for a long time based only on allegations could turn the legal process into punishment before conviction. The court had also highlighted the constitutional importance of personal liberty and due process.
The trial court had further noted that the offence of money laundering cannot exist independently without a valid predicate offence, but in practice, the situation appeared reversed in some cases.
At the same time, the trial court acknowledged that the objective of the PMLA law is legitimate, but it emphasized that even strong legal powers must operate within constitutional limits and cannot override fundamental rights and safeguards.
The Delhi High Court will now hear detailed arguments on April 22 on the ED’s request to remove the remarks made by the trial court against the agency. The outcome of this case will be important because it deals with the limits of judicial observations, the powers of investigation agencies under PMLA, and the protection of personal liberty under constitutional law.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Excise Policy Case
