Delhi HC gives Arvind Kejriwal last chance to reply in ED expunction plea

On March 19, the HC had granted time till April 2 for filing responses, while expressing displeasure over the failure of the respondents to adhere to the original timeline.

The Delhi high court on Thursday granted a final opportunity to former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and other respondents to file their replies in the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) petition seeking expunging of adverse observations made by a trial court while discharging them in the excise policy case.

AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal. (PTI)

A bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued the direction after counsel appearing for Kejriwal and others sought additional time to submit their responses. The court was informed that one of the respondents, Vinod Chauhan, has already filed his reply.

While allowing the request, the court made it clear that no further extension would be granted beyond the next date of hearing on April 22.

“This court granted time to file the replies on March 19. Last opportunity is granted to file the reply, failing which the opportunity to file the reply will be closed,” the court said in its order.

The matter pertains to observations made by a trial court on February 27 while discharging Kejriwal and 22 others in the excise policy case being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In its order, the trial court had observed that investigations by agencies such as the state police, the CBI or the ED cannot be initiated or sustained solely on allegations of election funding irregularities or excess expenditure.

It further noted that criminal law, particularly the stringent provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, cannot be used as a substitute for remedies under election law or as a means to convert political allegations into prosecutable offences.

Challenging these remarks, the ED moved the high court, arguing that although the observations in 18 paragraphs were general in nature, the trial judge had “condemned” the agency without granting it an opportunity to be heard.

The ED also contended that the trial court’s order contained allegations against the agency despite it not being a party to the proceedings, which were confined to a case investigated by the CBI. It argued that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction in making such remarks.

Earlier, on March 19, the HC had granted time till April 2 for filing responses, while expressing displeasure over the failure of the respondents to adhere to the original timeline. Justice Sharma had noted that during the March 10 hearing, she had initially indicated that there was no need to seek replies, but permitted the same following insistence by the counsels for the respondents.