NEW DELHI, Apr 2: The Delhi High Court has granted a final opportunity to former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, his former deputy Manish Sisodia, and other respondents to file their responses to a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The ED seeks the expungement of remarks made by a trial court against the agency while discharging the accused in the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.

Information was available with The Chenab Times that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that most respondents, with the exception of Vinod Chauhan, had failed to submit their replies even after seeking time during the previous hearing. The court has scheduled the arguments in the case for April 22.

“Last opportunity is granted to file reply, failing which the right to file reply will close. Arguments will be heard on the next date of hearing. List on April 22,” the judge stated.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the Enforcement Directorate, informed the court that all respondents, except Vinod Chauhan, had opted not to file their replies to the ED’s petition.

Previously, on March 19, the High Court had granted time until April 2 for Kejriwal and the other respondents to reply to the ED’s plea to expunge the remarks made against the agency. The ED’s counsel had at that time suggested that replies were not necessary as the plea was limited to challenging the trial court judge’s observations, which they argued had no bearing on the respondents’ discharge.

In its petition, the ED contended that the trial court’s remarks were entirely extraneous to the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) case. The agency further stated that it was neither a party to those proceedings nor was it given an opportunity to present its side.

“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’s plea argued. The agency asserted that the paragraphs concerning the investigation independently conducted by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) deserved to be expunged, describing them as a clear instance of “judicial overreach.”

On March 10, the High Court had directed Kejriwal and the other accused to respond to the ED’s plea. Earlier, on February 27, the trial court had discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and other individuals in the Delhi liquor policy case. The trial judge had remarked that the CBI’s case was unable to withstand judicial scrutiny and was entirely discredited.

The trial court had ruled that the alleged conspiracy was merely a speculative construct based on conjecture and surmise, lacking any admissible evidence. The judge emphasized that compelling the accused to endure a full criminal trial in the absence of legally admissible material would not serve the ends of justice.

In its order, the trial court had highlighted concerns regarding procedures that permit prolonged or indefinite incarceration based on provisional and untested allegations. It suggested such practices risked “degenerating into a punitive process” and raised significant constitutional questions where individual liberty was “imperilled” by the invocation of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The issue, the court noted, became more pronounced when an accused was arrested for money laundering and subsequently had to meet stringent bail conditions, leading to extended pre-trial incarceration.

Furthermore, the trial judge had pointed out that despite the established legal principle that a money laundering offense cannot stand independently and requires a legally sustainable predicate offense, a disturbing inversion of this practice was observed. While acknowledging the legitimate and compelling objective of the PMLA, the judge stated that statutory power, however broad, could not supersede constitutional safeguards.