Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi
New Delhi, Mar 19: The Delhi High Court on Thursday postponed the hearing of a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate seeking removal of certain adverse remarks made against it by a trial court in the excise policy case.
The matter came up before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who granted additional time to respondents, including AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, to file their replies.
Opposing the request, Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju, along with special counsel Zoheb Hossain, argued that the respondents had already received copies of the plea and were attempting to delay proceedings. He maintained that the court could proceed without waiting for their responses.
However, the court observed that since it had already directed replies to be filed, the respondents should be given a fair opportunity to present their arguments. The judge scheduled the next hearing for April 2, clarifying that the matter would be taken up for further consideration on that date.
The ED’s plea challenges portions of a February 27 order by the Rouse Avenue Court, which had discharged all 23 accused, including Kejriwal and Sisodia, in the alleged corruption case linked to the now-withdrawn excise policy of the AAP government.
The agency has argued that the trial court made broad and unwarranted observations against it, even though the proceedings were primarily related to a case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. It also contended that these remarks were made without giving it a chance to be heard.
Earlier, the High Court had issued notice on the ED’s petition and indicated that it would be heard along with the CBI’s revision plea challenging the discharge order. The CBI has claimed that the trial court ruling was legally flawed and effectively amounted to an acquittal without trial, alleging irregularities in the formulation of the excise policy.
Meanwhile, Kejriwal has approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging the refusal to transfer the case from Justice Sharma’s bench and also contesting the interim stay granted during proceedings in the CBI’s plea.
The case continues to remain a key legal and political flashpoint, with multiple proceedings underway across courts.