The Delhi High Court has directed former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia, and 21 other co-accused to respond to a fresh plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking to scrub "unwarranted" criticisms from a recent trial court order. The move follows a stinging February 27 ruling by the Rouse Avenue Court which not only discharged the Aam Aadmi Party leadership in the excise policy case but also took a swipe at the nature of the money laundering investigation.
Appearing for the ED on Tuesday, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that the trial judge had "no business" making adverse remarks against the agency in a case where it was not even a formal party. The ED’s petition describes the comments as "judicial overreach," claiming they were "wholly extraneous" to the Central Bureau of Investigation proceedings and could cause "irreparable prejudice" to the agency’s reputation and future cases.
Raju expressed concern that the judge had effectively condemned the ED’s methods without giving them a chance to be heard. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, however, seemed to take a slightly more measured view in the course of the verbal hearing. She said that the judge’s comments had appeared to be "general in nature" and not specifically applicable to this case.
"He thought it was an unfair investigation, so he made observations as some judges, including me, generally do," she said, suggesting that the judge was simply articulating a general philosophy of individual freedoms.
The original discharge order had been withering in its criticism, calling the prosecution’s case a "speculative construct" with no admissible evidence to support it. The original discharge order had been particularly scathing, describing the prosecution’s theory as a "speculative construct" that lacked any admissible evidence. More significantly, the trial judge had raised "constitutional concerns" about the way the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is used, warning that the "stringent twin conditions" for bail risked turning pre-trial detention into a punitive process that "imperilled" personal freedom.
While the CBI has already challenged the actual acquittal of the 23 accused, this separate battle over the "spirit" of the judgment is set to continue on March 19. Defence counsel for the accused have argued that the ED is attempting to cherry-pick quotes out of context, maintaining that the judge's remarks cannot be viewed in a "piecemeal" fashion. For now, the High Court’s primary task is to decide whether or not these philosophical musings on the PMLA should remain part of the official record or be expunged as the ED demands.
Also read: Manish Sisodia visits Mata Vaishno Devi shrine
Follow us
