New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday deferred hearing on a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking to expunge adverse observations made against it by a trial court, while granting additional time to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and other respondents to file their replies.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma allowed the request by counsel for the AAP leaders and other respondents, who sought more time to place their responses on record.
Appearing for the ED, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, along with special counsel Zoheb Hossain, opposed the request, arguing that replies were unnecessary as the respondents had already been served copies of the petition. He contended that the respondents were attempting to delay proceedings and that no prejudice would be caused if the court proceeded without awaiting their responses.
However, Justice Sharma observed that since the court had already directed that replies be filed, the respondents must be given an opportunity to present their case. “Since I passed an order, if they want to say something, let them say. Let it be listed for April 2. I will hear and then pass a final order,” the judge said, clarifying that only replies would be taken up on that date.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on April 2. The ED’s plea seeks deletion of portions of the February 27 order of the Rouse Avenue Court, which had discharged all 23 accused in the corruption case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy of the erstwhile AAP-led Delhi government.
The agency has argued that the trial court made sweeping and extraneous observations against it, even though the proceedings pertained to a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case, and that such remarks were recorded without granting the ED an opportunity to be heard.
Earlier, on March 10, the High Court issued notice on the ED’s plea and indicated it would be heard alongside the CBI’s criminal revision petition challenging the discharge order. Justice Sharma had noted that the entire trial court judgment was already under challenge and said the court would examine whether general observations could be made against the ED in the absence of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Separately, the High Court is also hearing the CBI’s revision plea against the discharge of Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others. In that matter, it has already stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental action against a CBI officer, along with remarks made against the agency.
The CBI has argued that the trial court’s order was legally flawed and amounted to an acquittal without trial, alleging that the excise policy was manipulated to benefit select liquor traders in exchange for bribes.
Meanwhile, Kejriwal has approached the Supreme Court, challenging the refusal of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice to transfer the CBI’s plea from Justice Sharma’s Bench, citing concerns over impartiality. He has also filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the High Court’s stay order in the CBI revision proceedings.
With IANS inputs