Delhi High Court Grants Time to AAP Leaders in ED Case

Court Proceedings on ED's Petition

On Thursday, March 19, the Delhi High Court provided a timeline for Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, including Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, to respond to the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) petition. This petition seeks the removal of certain negative remarks made by a special court while acquitting the accused in the excise policy corruption case. Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma granted the request for additional time at the behest of the defendants' lawyers. Present for the ED were Assistant Government Advocate SV Raju and Special Counsel Zoheb Hussain. Initially, the defense attorneys requested more time to file their response to the petition. In response, Hussain stated that there was no need for further requests as all defendants had already received a formal copy of the petition.

Arguments Presented in Court

Raju argued that the defendants were merely attempting to delay the proceedings, asserting that if any order were passed in favor of the agency, it would not cause them harm. The judge remarked that she was confused by the prosecution's stance, which claimed that the lower court judge had exceeded their jurisdiction. She noted that she had previously indicated her own comments on the matter. The defendants had previously stated their intention to file a response, yet now they were requesting additional time to review 600 pages of documentation. The court allowed Kejriwal and others to submit their responses to the ED's petition after the lunch break.

Next Steps in the Legal Process

The court indicated that since an order had already been issued, the defendants could express any further concerns. The case is scheduled for a hearing on April 2, where the ED will begin its arguments. The agency has claimed that it was not a party to the CBI proceedings and was not given an opportunity to present its case before the adverse remarks were recorded. According to the ED, this situation represents a severe violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice and judicial propriety. The petition stated, "If such sweeping, unrestrained, and baseless comments are accepted, which were made behind the ED's back based solely on conjectures, without any material or evidence collected by the ED, it would cause serious and irreparable harm to both the public and the petitioners."