New Delhi [India], March 19 : The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted time to Delhi's former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, among others, to file their replies in a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging adverse observations made by a trial court in the Excise Policy case.
The matter was taken up by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who was informed that the trial court's judgment runs into several hundred pages and requires detailed examination. Taking note of the submissions, the Court permitted the respondents to file their replies and listed the matter for further hearing on April 2.
During the proceedings, the Bench asked the parties how much time would be required to argue the matter. In response, counsel for the respondents highlighted the voluminous nature of the trial court order. One of the counsel also suggested that the matter could be heard after proceedings in the connected CBI case.
The Court, however, indicated that it would first go through the pleadings before fixing a schedule for detailed arguments. It clarified that once replies are filed, it will consider the matter and then decide the timeline for the final hearing. The Bench further observed that if the ED wishes to advance arguments, it may do so first, followed by the respondents.
The plea before the High Court has been filed by the ED seeking the expunging of certain remarks made by the trial court in its February 27, 2026, order, which discharged multiple accused in the Delhi Excise Policy case. The agency has contended that the trial court made sweeping and adverse observations against it despite the ED not being a party to the proceedings.
Earlier, while issuing notice in the matter, the High Court had prima facie observed that the remarks against the ED appeared "foundationally misconceived," particularly as they were made at the stage of considering discharge applications.
The ED has argued that the trial court went beyond the scope of the proceedings in the CBI case and made extensive comments on its investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) without examining the material collected by the agency. It has further submitted that such observations, made without hearing the ED, violate principles of natural justice and could prejudice ongoing proceedings.
Opposing the plea, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the observations formed part of the trial court's reasoning and cannot be selectively deleted. It has been argued that the trial court considered the overall material before it while deciding the discharge applications.
The ED has sought deletion of specific portions of the trial court's order, contending that the remarks amount to unwarranted criticism of its functioning. It has also objected to certain observations relating to arrests and the role of investigative agencies, including remarks suggesting that such agencies should not enter the "electoral arena."
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor