New Delhi, March 10 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court issued a notice on a plea from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) today, requesting the removal of negative remarks made by a trial court that discharged all accused, including prominent AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, in the excise policy case.

A single-judge Bench led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma instructed the top AAP officials and other respondents to respond to the ED’s petition, indicating that this issue would be addressed alongside the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) appeal against the discharge order issued by the Rouse Avenue Court.

“I will issue notice in this matter and schedule it for the same day as the other case. When I rule on that case, I will review the entire judgment,” stated Justice Sharma during the proceedings.

Representing the ED, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju argued that the trial court made broad statements against the federal anti-money laundering body, despite the proceedings being focused solely on the CBI case.

“The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is not relevant to this case. It is a CBI matter. The judge was not considering proceeds of crime. Kejriwal was not detained for money laundering in the CBI case,” asserted ASG Raju.

He maintained that the ED was unjustly criticized without the chance to defend itself. “In a situation where the ED is not involved, the judge’s observations should only have been made after hearing our side. This impacts us negatively. The ED has been condemned without a hearing,” the Central government’s legal representative remarked.

Justice Sharma responded, “These are general remarks. I trust that they are unrelated to the case at hand,” emphasizing that the Delhi High Court would evaluate whether such remarks were appropriate.

When ASG Raju insisted that even general comments could harm the ED in future cases, the Delhi HC noted that the entire trial court ruling was already under review.

“This entire judgment is already being contested. When I make a decision, I will consider this,” said Justice Sharma.

On Monday, the Delhi High Court had also issued notice on the CBI’s criminal revision petition challenging the trial court’s decision to discharge all 23 defendants linked to the now-defunct excise policy initiated by the then AAP-led Delhi government.

It had further paused the trial court’s directive for departmental action against a CBI officer involved in the investigation, stating that comments made against both the investigating agency and the officer would remain suspended.

In its petition, the ED called for the removal of several paragraphs from the February 27 order issued by the Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts, arguing that the remarks were “irrelevant to the matter” at hand and were recorded despite the federal anti-money laundering agency not being an active participant.

The petition claims that the contested remarks “would severely undermine” the ED’s ongoing investigation under the PMLA and violate principles of natural justice since the agency was not consulted before these comments were made.

During the session, senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari, representing one of the respondents, stated that the remarks were made concerning the case's merits and were not directed at the ED personally.

Another senior advocate, N. Hariharan, representing the respondents, contended that the ED had misinterpreted sections of the judgment.

“They have extracted one paragraph from here and another from there. The complete judgment must be regarded in context,” the senior counsel stated.

When ASG Raju urged the Delhi High Court to clarify that the trial court’s comments should not influence future proceedings, the respondents’ counsel opposed any interim orders.

However, Justice Sharma remarked that no orders had yet been issued in other cases and added that the Delhi High Court would resolve the matter after hearing from all parties.

“No one can prevent me from issuing an order. No one can dictate what order I should pass. I will make a ruling that I believe is just,” the judge noted. The case will be revisited for further hearings on March 19.