Delhi liquor ‘scam’: Former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and other ex-accused have filed a writ petition in the High Court before Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma, an Aam Admi Party (AAP) spokesperson said, adding that Kejriwal will appear tomorrow and argue in person.
This comes after the Delhi High Court on Thursday gave Kejriwal, his former deputy Manish Sisodia and others a last chance to file their replies to the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) plea seeking removal of the “unauthorised” remarks made against him by a trial court while acquitting them in the liquor policy case, according to PTI.
Noting that none of the respondents, except one, had responded despite seeking time during the previous hearing, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the court would proceed to hear arguments in the matter on April 22.
“The last opportunity to file an answer is given, otherwise the right to file an answer expires. Arguments will be discussed at the next meeting date. List on April 22,” the judge mentioned.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the agency, told the court that apart from Vinod Chauhan, none of the other respondents had responded to the petition.
Read also | Who is Justice Swarana Sharma? Kejriwal wants her removed from the excise case
On March 19, the court gave Kejriwal and other respondents till April 2 to file their replies to the ED’s application seeking removal of the remarks against him.
At the time, ED counsel argued that filing responses was unnecessary because the petition only challenged the trial judge’s statement about the agency, which did not affect respondents’ dismissal.
What did ED say?
In its motion, the ED said that the trial court’s observations were not at all related to the CBI case. He also stated that he is neither a party to these proceedings nor has he been given an opportunity to present his case.
Read also | Kejriwal to Modi: Has Iran ensured safe passage of Indian ships through Hormuz?
The ED’s plea stated, “Should such rampant, uncontrolled, naked observations be permitted… grave and irreparable prejudice would be caused to the general public as well as to the petitioner.”
He added: “Therefore, the above paragraphs relating to the investigation conducted independently by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) deserve to be quashed as it is a clear case of judicial overreach…”
On March 10, the court directed Kejriwal and the other respondents to submit their replies to the ED application.
Read also | Chadha refutes AAP’s Rajya Sabha speeches on Punjab: ‘The picture still remains’
Earlier on February 27, the trial court had acquitted Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the Delhi liquor policy case, finding that the CBI’s case did not stand up to judicial scrutiny and was completely discredited.
The court observed that the alleged conspiracy was purely speculative, based on conjecture and conjecture and lacking any admissible evidence.
He further submitted that forcing the accused to undergo a full criminal trial in the complete absence of legally admissible material would not serve justice.
In its order, the trial court emphasized that a system allowing prolonged or indefinite detention on provisional and untried charges risked “degenerating into a punitive process” and raised “concerns of significant constitutional significance” where an individual’s liberty was “threatened” by the application of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the report said.
The court noted that the matter has gained importance in cases where the accused is arrested for money laundering and has to fulfill double stringent bail conditions, often resulting in prolonged remand.
She also pointed out that under established law, money laundering cannot exist on its own and must be linked to a legally sustainable predicate offence, but current practice often overturns this principle.
While the judge acknowledged that the PMLA’s goals were legitimate and compelling, he emphasized that the breadth of statutory powers cannot outweigh constitutional protections.
