NEW DELHI (Tuesday, March 10, 2026) — The Delhi High Court has issued notices to former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, and 21 other respondents following a petition by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The central agency is seeking to expunge “unwarranted” and “adverse” remarks made by a trial court while discharging the accused in the CBI-led excise policy case on February 27.
The ED’s Argument: “Condemned Without a Hearing”
Representing the ED, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju argued that the Special Court’s observations were a result of “judicial overreach.”
- Lack of Standing: The ED emphasized that it was not a party to the CBI proceedings. Therefore, the agency was never given an opportunity to present its evidence or be heard before the judge made disparaging remarks about its investigation.
- Prejudice to PMLA Case: The agency contends that the trial court’s remarks—which touched upon money laundering and the “criminalization of electoral competition”—could seriously prejudice its independent and ongoing investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
- Specific Paragraphs: The ED has moved to delete 18 specific paragraphs (including paras 1124 to 1132) of the discharge order, calling them “sweeping, unguided, and bald observations.”
The High Court’s Observations
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while issuing the notice, offered a preliminary perspective on the nature of the trial court’s comments.
- “General Observations”: Justice Sharma orally remarked that the trial court’s comments appeared to be “general observations” which many judges make when they feel an investigation has been “unfair,” and might not have been intended specifically for the case at hand.
- Integrated Hearing: The court noted that since the entire discharge order is already being challenged by the CBI, the ED’s plea to expunge remarks will be heard alongside the main revision petition to avoid “piecemeal” adjudication.
- Judicial Independence: When defense counsel protested against an interim stay on the remarks, Justice Sharma asserted, “Nobody can stop me from passing an order… I will pass an order that I think is right.”
Context: The “Electoral Arena” Remark
The ED is particularly aggrieved by the trial court’s observation that investigative agencies like the CBI or ED should not be permitted to enter the “electoral arena” based solely on allegations of illegal campaign funding, as it leads to the “criminalization of electoral competition.”
| Status of Proceedings | Date | Details |
| Trial Court Discharge | Feb 27, 2026 | Special Judge Jitendra Singh discharged all 23 accused, citing lack of “prima facie” evidence. |
| CBI Challenge | Mar 9, 2026 | HC stayed the trial court’s remarks against the CBI’s Investigating Officer (IO). |
| ED Plea Hearing | Mar 10, 2026 | HC issued notice to all 23 respondents to reply to ED’s plea to expunge remarks. |
| Next Hearing | Mar 19, 2026 | Both the CBI’s challenge and ED’s plea will be heard together. |
Sources
- Live Law: “Condemned Without Hearing: ED Tells Delhi High Court Over Adverse Remarks In Excise Policy Case” (March 10, 2026)
- Bar and Bench: “No one can dictate to me what order to pass: Delhi HC in ED plea to expunge remarks” (March 10, 2026)
- Hindustan Times: “Delhi HC notice on ED plea on trial court order discharging Kejriwal, Sisodia” (March 10, 2026)
- The Indian Express: “Excise policy case: ED says trial court judge had no business to make adverse remarks” (March 10, 2026)
Leave a Reply