The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice on a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking the expungement of certain observations made against the probe agency in a trail court order related to the Delhi excise policy case, which directed the release of AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and party leader Manish Sisodia.
After hearing submissions by the ED, the HC indicated it would pass an order on the agency’s plea, reported news agency ANI.
The issue was heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who acknowledged that the remarks against the ED appeared to be prima facie “foundationally misconceived”, especially considering that such observations were made at the stage of considering discharge applications.
The HC also noted that the ED was not a party before the trial court when the remarks regarding its investigation into the Delhi excise case were made.
The ED had approached the High Court seeking deletion of several paragraphs of comments from the 27 February 2026 order of the trial court that discharged 23 persons accused in the case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with alleged irregularities in the implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. Among those acquitted were former Delhi Chief Minister and his deputy Manish Sisodia.
Arguing for the ED, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju stated that the trial courts comments about the agency’s probe were recording while deciding on discharge applications in the CBI case, and therefore fell outside the purview of the case before the trial court. The advocate also stated that the agency was not part of the proceedings and had no opportunity to present its case before the trial court.
Arguing against the ED, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari said that the observations by the trial court formed the basis of its reasoning in examining the circumstances surrounding the case, and as such, could not be selectively removed.
However, to this, the ED contended that the remarks made by the trial court could spark unwarranted criticism of the agency and affect ongoing investigations being carried out under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Further, the ED also objected to the trial court’s observations about arrests and prosecution under the PMLA, as well as the court’s remarks that investigative agencies should not enter the “electoral arena” in matters related to campaign expenditure and party funding.
The petition by the ED was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking the removal several paragraphs of the trial court’s order, including paragraphs 109, 1048 to 1052, 1062, 1083, 1106 and 1124 to 1132.
