The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has approached the Delhi High Court to expunge remarks made against it by the trial court while discharging Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and all the others accused in the Delhi Excise Policy case.
The matter is listed for hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Tuesday.
The ED has sought directions to expunge the remarks made by Special Judge (PC Act) Jitendra Singh in paragraphs 109, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1062, 1083, 1106, 1124, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1131 and 1132 of his order passed on February 27, 2026.
It is the agency's case that the remarks are "sweeping and unwarranted " and were passed behind its back based on "pure conjectures".
"The Petitioner was not a party to the said CBI proceedings in any capacity, and was not afforded any opportunity to be heard before the said adverse observations were recorded, thereby flagrantly violating the fundamental principles of natural justice and judicial decorum," the ED has said.
It has been argued that the judge's observations disclose a "pre-determined approach" where observations "imbued with notes of finality" have been made with respect to the offence of money laundering without looking at the evidence gathered by the ED or hearing the agency.
The ED has stressed that these observations would cause grave prejudice to the agency's case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as well as the public at large.
In a detailed order passed on February 27, the trial court had expressed concern over the ED's practice of making arrests and filing prosecution complaints in money laundering cases even before the facts of the corresponding predicate offence cases undergo judicial scrutiny.
Judge Jitendra Singh had noted that the cases under PMLA imperil an individual’s liberty based on a presumption of “proceeds of crime” arising out of the scheduled offences.
Referring to the settled legal position that money laundering offences do not survive in the event of closure of the predicate offence, the Court observed,
“Despite this settled legal position, the prevailing practice reveals a disturbing inversion of the statutory scheme, wherein coercive powers of arrest and prolonged custody are invoked even before the foundational facts relating to the scheduled offence are judicially tested. This results in a situation where an individual is deprived of personal liberty on the strength of an allegation whose legal sustainability remains uncertain and contingent upon a future outcome in a parallel investigation.”
Further, Judge Singh had said that ED often proceeds to file prosecution complaints without the completion of an investigation into the scheduled offences by the other agency.