Delhi High Court Seeks Response from Kejriwal and Sisodia on ED's Plea to Expunge Remarks
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 other individuals, who were recently discharged in the CBI's excise policy case, to submit their positions on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The ED is seeking to expunge what it describes as "unwarranted" remarks made against it by the trial court.
Court Observations and Legal Arguments
Posting the matter for further hearing on March 19, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked that the observations in the trial court order appeared to be general in nature and have nothing to do with the case. "He (special judge Jitendra Singh) was not saying it in the context of this case. He was feeling whatever he was feeling.... He thought it was an unfair investigation, so he made observations as some judges, including me, generally do," Sharma orally observed.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED, contended that Singh "had no business" making adverse statements and direct allegations in a case where the ED was not even a party. "ED was condemned without a hearing," Raju submitted, urging the High Court to issue an interim order. Raju also sought a direction that the observations would not influence any other case, but this was opposed by lawyers representing some of the accused. They argued that the remarks highlighted by the agency were without context and could not be viewed in a "piecemeal" manner.
ED's Petition and Trial Court's Earlier Ruling
In its petition, the ED stated that the trial court's remarks were wholly extraneous to the CBI's case. It emphasized that the ED was neither a party in those proceedings nor afforded any opportunity to be heard. "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 said.
"Therefore, the aforesaid paragraphs which concern the investigation independently conducted by ED under PMLA deserve to be expunged as it amounts to a clear case of judicial overreach," it added.
Last month, the trial court, while discharging the 23 accused, criticized the CBI, stating that its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety. It concluded that the alleged conspiracy was nothing more than a speculative construct resting on conjecture and surmise, devoid of any admissible evidence.
The trial court highlighted that to compel the accused to face the rigours of a full-fledged criminal trial in the stark absence of any legally admissible material did not serve the ends of justice. It noted that a procedure permitting prolonged or indefinite incarceration based on a provisional and untested allegation risked "degenerating into a punitive process" and raised a "concern of considerable constitutional significance" where individual liberty was "imperilled" by invoking the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
