New Delhi, March 19, 2026
The Delhi High Court on Thursday deferred a hearing on a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking expunging of certain adverse observations made against it by a trial court while discharging all accused, including AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, in the excise policy case.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma allowed the request made by the counsel for AAP leaders and other respondents, who sought additional time to place their replies on record.
Appearing for the federal anti-money laundering agency, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, along with special counsel Zoheb Hossain, opposed the request and submitted that there was no requirement to seek replies from the respondents since they had already been served with copies of the petition.
Raju contended that the respondents were attempting to delay the proceedings and argued that no prejudice would be caused to them if the Delhi High Court were to pass an order in favour of the ED without waiting for their responses.
However, Justice Sharma said that since an order had already been passed calling for replies, the respondents should be given an opportunity to present their case.
“Since I passed an order, if they want to say something, let them say. Let it be listed for April 2. I will hear and then pass a final order. They (ED) can start. Maybe you (respondents) won’t even start on that date. Only reply is being called for April 2. Nothing is happening on that day,” the judge observed.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 2. The development comes in a plea filed by the ED seeking deletion of certain portions of the February 27 order passed by the Rouse Avenue Court, which had discharged all 23 accused in the corruption case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy introduced by the then AAP-led Delhi government.
The ED has contended that the trial court made sweeping and extraneous observations against it despite the proceedings relating only to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case, and argued that such remarks were recorded without granting the federal anti-money laundering agency an opportunity of being heard.
Earlier, on March 10, the Delhi High Court had issued notice on the ED’s plea and indicated that it would be heard along with the CBI’s criminal revision petition challenging the discharge order.
Justice Sharma had observed that the entire trial court judgment was already under challenge and said it would examine whether such general observations could have been made against the ED in the absence of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Separately, the Delhi High Court is also seized of the CBI’s revision plea assailing the discharge of Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others, in which it has already issued notice and stayed the trial court’s direction ordering departmental action against a CBI officer, along with the remarks made against the investigating agency.
The CBI has argued that the trial court’s order was legally flawed and amounted to an acquittal without trial, alleging that the excise policy was manipulated to benefit select liquor traders in exchange for bribes.
Meanwhile, Kejriwal has approached the Supreme Court challenging the refusal of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice to transfer the CBI’s plea from the Bench of Justice Sharma, contending that the decision raises a reasonable apprehension regarding impartiality.
He has also filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the apex court challenging the stay ordered by the Delhi High Court during the hearing of the CBI’s revision plea.(Agency)
FOLLOW NOW
