The Delhi High Court sought responses on ED’s plea to remove trial court remarks made while discharging Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, saying, “No one can dictate to me what order to pass… see how much strain you put on the judge.”
The Delhi High Court requested responses to a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking deletion of critical remarks made about it by a trial court when the court discharged Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and other accused in the Delhi Excise Policy matter.
At the start of the hearing, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed,
“It has nothing to do with the case in question. I will decide this. I am going through this. I do need to call for a reply in this. I will see if they [observations] are right or wrong.”
Representing the ED, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju submitted that the trial court had levied direct allegations against the ED in proceedings where the agency was neither a party nor concerned, arguing that the judge had no authority to make such remarks.
Justice Sharma responded that the judge’s comments were not specific to that case but were general observations similar to remarks sometimes made by other judges, including herself.
ASG Raju countered that, even if general in nature, such statements harm the ED’s reputation.
He argued,
“These observations would be used against me when my matter comes. The ED is condemned without even hearing,”
Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, appearing for Kejriwal, Sisodia and other respondents, noted that the ED had sought an adjournment the previous day and questioned whether the ED had been before the court when those observations were made.
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, also for the respondents, said the trial judge’s remarks had been taken out of context.
Justice Sharma said the judgment in question was already under challenge and that she would review it when deciding that appeal. She added that she would issue notice in the ED’s petition and list it for hearing on the same day as the related CBI challenge to the trial court order.
ASG Raju asked the court to direct that the trial court’s observations not be relied upon.
When opposing counsel objected, Justice Sharma asserted her independence,
“Nobody can stop me from passing an order. No one can dictate to me what order to pass. I will pass an order what I want to pass and what I think is right…Just see how much strain you put on the judge.”
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on Thursday, March 19.
The ED has asked the High Court to expunge passages in paragraphs 109, 1048–1052, 1062, 1083, 1106, and 1124–1132 of Special Judge (PC Act) Jitendra Singh’s February 27, 2026 order. The agency contends the comments are “sweeping and unwarranted” and were made without giving the ED an opportunity to be heard, relying instead on conjecture.
The petition states the ED was not a party to the CBI proceedings and thus was deprived of a chance to respond before adverse observations were recorded, a violation of natural justice and judicial protocol. It alleges the judge’s remarks reveal a “pre-determined approach,” with statements expressed in a tone of finality about money laundering despite the ED’s evidence and without hearing the agency.
The ED warned that such observations would seriously prejudice its PMLA case and harm the public interest.
In its detailed February 27 order, the trial court had criticized what it described as the ED’s practice of making arrests and initiating prosecutions in money-laundering matters even before the underlying predicate offences have been subjected to judicial scrutiny.
Judge Jitendra Singh observed that PMLA cases put personal liberty at risk by presuming “proceeds of rime” from scheduled offences, and noted that money-laundering charges normally cannot survive if the predicate offence is closed.
ALSO READ: Court Directs Case Against Arvind Kejriwal for Alleged Misuse of Public Funds
He wrote that despite this settled law, current practice appears inverted: coercive arrests and prolonged custody are often used before the foundational facts of the scheduled offence have been tested in court, which can result in deprivation of liberty based on allegations whose legal sustainability remains uncertain and dependent on the outcome of a parallel probe.
The judge also remarked that the ED frequently files prosecution complaints prior to the completion of investigations into the scheduled offences by the other investigating agency.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Arvind Kejriwal