Delhi HC grants Kejriwal, others final chance to reply in ED petition seeking to expunge trial court observations

Delhi High Court gives Arvind Kejriwal and others final chance to respond to ED's petition seeking to expunge trial court's comments in excise case.

New Delhi

While granting the request, the court clarified that if the responses are not filed by April 22, the next date of hearing, no further opportunity will be given, and the matter will be decided. (Representative photo)

The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted the final opportunity to former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and others to file their reply in an Enforcement Directorate (ED) petition, seeking to expunge observations made by a trial court while discharging them in the excise policy case being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

A bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued the direction after the counsel for Arvind Kejriwal and others sought additional time to file their replies. The court was also informed that one of the respondents, Vinod Chauhan, had already filed his response.

While granting the request, the court clarified that if the responses are not filed by April 22, the next date of hearing, no further opportunity will be given, and the matter will be decided. “On March 19, this court granted time to file the replies. 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.

On February 27, the trial court, while discharging Kejriwal and 22 others, had observed that the investigations by the state police, the CBI or the ED cannot be initiated or sustained solely on allegations of election funding irregularities, excess expenditure and criminal law. It noted that, particularly, the extraordinary and coercive regimes of the PC Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be employed as a substitute for election law remedies or a device to convert political accusations into prosecutable offences.

In its petition before the high court, the ED had asserted that even though the observations made in 18 paragraphs— which the agency sought to be expunged—were general in nature, the judge “condemned” the agency without giving it an opportunity of being heard. It added that the order contained allegations against the agency in which it was not even a party, that the proceedings were confined strictly to the case investigated by the CBI, and the trial court had no business to make such remarks.

On March 19, the high court granted until April 2 to file the response, even as it expressed displeasure over their failure to submit the responses within the originally stipulated time. Justice Sharma noted that during the March 10 hearing, she initially indicated that there was no need to seek a reply, but allowed them to file the same on the insistence of their counsels.