Excise case: Kejriwal, 22 others get time till April 2 to reply to ED’s petition

Delhi High Court gives Arvind Kejriwal and 22 others time until April 2 to respond to ED's plea for expunging adverse remarks from the trial court.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and 22 others time till April 2 to file their responses in the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) petition seeking that “adverse observations” made by the trial court against the agency while discharging them in the excise policy case be expunged. The court also expressed displeasure over their failure to file these replies within the previously stipulated time.

They were earlier granted time till March 19 to file their reply. (Photo for representation)

The bench, led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, noted that during the previous hearing on March 10, she initially said that there was no need to seek a reply from Kejriwal and others, but allowed them to file it after their counsels insisted. They were granted time till March 19 to file their reply.

At the hearing, their counsels sought additional time to submit their response, arguing that the 600-page order by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which was investigating the case, required careful review and that a concise reply was necessary to clarify whether the court’s observations were general or specific in nature.

However, the judge questioned why they would need to read the order. “There is a prosecuting agency (ED) which says that this judge has exceeded jurisdiction. I told them (ED) on the last date that even I make such observations so what is harming you? In the first go, I was just of the opinion that I need to decide whether he (trial court judge) exceeded his jurisdiction or not. But you (Kejriwal and others) said, no let us file a reply and then you come and say you have to read 600 pages to file the reply. There is no need to read 600 pages.”

ED’s counsel, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, along with Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, argued that there was no need for a reply and contended that the request was merely an attempt to delay the hearing. CBI’s counsel, ASG DP Singh, also maintained that filing a reply was unnecessary.

On February 27, Rouse Avenue Court discharged Kejriwal and 22 others in the case, holding that the CBI’s evidence did not disclose a prima facie case against them.

Among its observations, it said investigations by the state police, CBI, or ED cannot be initiated or sustained solely on allegations of election funding irregularities and excess expenditure. The extraordinary and coercive regimes of the Prevention of Corruption of Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, particularly, cannot be employed as a substitute for election law remedies or a device to convert political accusations into prosecutable offences, the court further observed.

In its petition before the high court, ED 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 to be heard.

It added that the order contained allegations against the agency in which it was not even a party, the proceedings were confined strictly to the case investigated by the CBI, and the trial court had no business to make such remarks.