In the ongoing Delhi excise policy money laundering case, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Member of Parliament Sanjay Singh's legal team has requested around 200 days to inspect the documents filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) alongside its charge sheet and supplementary charge sheets. The request for an extended time has been made to review the substantial amount of un-relied documents presented by the ED in relation to the case.
During the proceedings, several other key political figures, including former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, ex-Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, AAP MP Sanjay Singh, K Kavitha, and other accused individuals appeared via video conferencing.
Special Judge Kaveri Baweja expressed frustration over the counsels' hesitation in specifying the amount of time needed for the inspection, despite being asked multiple times.
The judge noted her dissatisfaction with the delay and warned the lawyers that if they didn’t provide a clear response, it would be formally recorded that they were unwilling to give a timeframe.
Eventually, Sanjay Singh's lawyer, Advocate Dr. Farrukh Khan, stated that 200 to 220 days were required to complete the inspection, subject to the volume of data and cooperation from the ED.
Meanwhile, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Navin Matta informed the court that a space had been prepared for the document inspection at the ED headquarters and that air conditioners were being installed that day to make the area more comfortable for the lawyers. He even showed a video of the preparations to the court.
However, the counsels for the accused objected to the arrangements, arguing that they were being forced to inspect documents in makeshift porta cabins, which they described as unhygienic, unsafe, and uninhabitable. They also raised concerns about a monkey menace in the area, making the environment unsuitable for extended hours of work.
In light of these complaints, the court asked the counsels to visit the inspection room at the ED headquarters in person. They were also permitted to bring their phones to document the condition of the space and report back to the court. The court emphasised that a fair and proper inspection process is essential and agreed to review the objections once the counsels had visited the site.
The issue of document inspection has been ongoing, and the court has been actively addressing the matter. In previous hearings, advocates had raised similar concerns about the working conditions at the ED’s office.
They highlighted that the temporary arrangements, such as conference rooms or makeshift spaces, were not conducive for such a detailed and lengthy inspection process.
The court had already directed SPP Navin Matta to resolve the situation after complaints were raised during a prior hearing on September 30. At that time, the Rouse Avenue Court had expressed a serious view on the inconvenience caused to the advocates who had been asked to inspect the documents in substandard conditions.
Follow us
