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