Excise case: HC extends deadline for Kejriwal & Sisodia in ED plea
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted time till April 2 to former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and 21 others to respond to a plea by the Enforcement Directorate to expunge “unwarranted” remarks made against it by the trial court while discharging them in the liquor policy case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expressed displeasure over the request for more time by the lawyers appearing for Kejriwal and other accused, and said it would fix a date for final hearing in the matter during the next hearing on April 2.
“I don’t know why you are not filing a reply. You should have filed a reply if you think you really needed to file a reply. They are only saying judge should not have written something that he has written.”
“By second (of April), you file your reply. Then we will fix a date for final hearing,” the judge said.
The Enforcement Directorate’s counsel said there was no need to file replies to its petition and that this was an attempt to delay the case.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for ED, contended that the agency’s petition has no impact on the accused, as the challenge was limited to the trial court judge’s observations against the agency when it discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the CBI case.
The counsel for one of the accused said a brief reply was necessary and time was needed for it as the discharge order was 600 pages long.
Justice Sharma remarked that the ED’s case has nothing to do with all 600 pages.
“Here is a prosecuting agency which has stated that the judge exceeded jurisdiction. I told them even I make such observations. I need to deicide it but you said I need to file a reply. Now you say 600 pages have to be read,” the judge observed.
The Enforcement Directorate said the trial court’s remarks were extraneous, as it was neither a party nor heard, and sought their removal to avoid prejudice.
The court had discharged Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, calling the case speculative, lacking evidence, and warning that misuse of the PMLA could threaten personal liberty.
