The Enforcement Directorate has approached the Delhi High Court seeking removal of adverse observations made by a trial court while discharging Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others in the Excise Policy case. The agency argues the remarks were unwarranted and recorded without giving it a chance to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has approached the Delhi High Court seeking removal of certain remarks made against the agency by a trial court while discharging several accused, including Aam Aadmi Party leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, in the Delhi Excise Policy case.
The matter is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court.
In its petition, the ED has requested the High Court to expunge several observations made by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Jitendra Singh in his detailed order dated February 27, 2026. The agency has specifically challenged remarks contained in paragraphs 109, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1062, 1083, 1106, 1124, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1131 and 1132 of the order.
ALSO READ: Court Directs Case Against Arvind Kejriwal for Alleged Misuse of Public Funds
The ED argued that the remarks made by the trial court were not justified and were recorded without giving the agency a chance to present its side. According to the enforcement agency, the comments made by the judge could negatively impact its ongoing investigation and prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
In its plea before the High Court, the ED has described the remarks as “sweeping and unwarranted ” and stated that they were passed behind its back based on “pure conjectures”.
The agency has also pointed out that it was not made a party in the proceedings before the trial court where these remarks were recorded. Therefore, it claims that it did not receive any opportunity to explain its position before the adverse observations were made.
“The Petitioner was not a party to the said CBI proceedings in any capacity, and was not afforded any opportunity to be heard before the said adverse observations were recorded, thereby flagrantly violating the fundamental principles of natural justice and judicial decorum,”
the ED has said.
Further, the ED has argued that the trial court’s observations appear to reflect a predetermined view about the agency’s investigation. According to the plea, the judge made conclusions about money laundering offences without examining the evidence collected by the ED or allowing the agency to present its arguments.
The ED has stated that the judge’s remarks disclose a “pre-determined approach” where observations “imbued with notes of finality” have been made with respect to the offence of money laundering without looking at the evidence gathered by the ED or hearing the agency.
The agency has also warned that such observations could seriously affect its case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and could also impact the broader public interest. It argued that allowing such remarks to remain in the judicial record may cause grave prejudice to its investigations and prosecutions.
The controversy stems from a detailed order passed by Special Judge Jitendra Singh on February 27, 2026, in which the court discharged several accused persons, including Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, in the Delhi Excise Policy case.
While passing the order, the trial court had expressed serious concerns about the manner in which the Enforcement Directorate initiates arrests and files prosecution complaints in money laundering cases.
The court observed that in many cases individuals are arrested and kept in custody under the PMLA even before the facts related to the alleged predicate or scheduled offence are examined and tested in court.
Judge Jitendra Singh highlighted that cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can directly impact an individual’s personal liberty because they are based on the assumption that there are “proceeds of crime” arising from scheduled offences.
The court also referred to the settled legal principle that a money laundering case cannot survive if the underlying predicate offence itself is closed or does not stand.
Referring to this legal position, the trial court observed,
“Despite this settled legal position, the prevailing practice reveals a disturbing inversion of the statutory scheme, wherein coercive powers of arrest and prolonged custody are invoked even before the foundational facts relating to the scheduled offence are judicially tested. This results in a situation where an individual is deprived of personal liberty on the strength of an allegation whose legal sustainability remains uncertain and contingent upon a future outcome in a parallel investigation.”
The trial court further observed that in many situations the ED proceeds to file prosecution complaints even before the investigation into the scheduled offences by the primary investigating agency is completed.
According to the court, such practices raise important concerns about due process and the protection of personal liberty.
The ED has now approached the Delhi High Court seeking removal of these remarks, arguing that they unfairly criticise the agency without hearing its side and may adversely affect ongoing proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The Delhi High Court is expected to consider the agency’s plea and decide whether the remarks made by the trial court should remain part of the judicial record or be expunged.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Excise Policy Case
