Delhi High Court asks ED for file on sanction to prosecute Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia in Excise Policy case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to produce the original file disclosing the sanction granted to prosecute former Delhi Chief Minister (CM) Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia in the money laundering proceedings connected to the Delhi Excise Policy case.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja passed the order after hearing the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders' petitions challenging the trial court's order to take cognizance of the prosecution complaint naming them as accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

During the hearing, the Court noted that the Deputy Director (Vigilance), in a letter to the ED dated December 30, 2024, had recorded that the competent authority has granted sanction to prosecute the accused.

However, the Court found that the sanction was actually granted later.

"The sanction order placed on record is of subsequent date i.e., 14-02-2025. On being questioned about the aforesaid discrepancy, Mr. [Zoheb] Hossain, ld Special Prosecutor for the ED seeks time to seek clarification and produce the sanction file before the Court. Let the sanction file be produced," the Court ordered.

On request, the Court also granted the ED liberty to file an additional affidavit in respect of the clarification. The matter has been posted for hearing next on January 21, 2026.

The money laundering case against Kejriwal and other AAP leaders stems from alleged irregularities in the framing of the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22. The case involves allegations that several AAP leaders including Kejriwal were involved in deliberately leaving loopholes in the policy in exchange for kickbacks from liquor companies. 

The investigation agencies have alleged that the funds garnered from this exercise were used to fund the AAP's election campaign in Goa. The case was probed by both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED.

In the present plea before the Court, Kejriwal and Sisodia have placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Enforcement Directorate v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya to argue that cognizance on the PMLA complaint could not have been taken by the trial court without prosecution sanction.

During a hearing of the case in November 2024, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had claimed that the central agency had received the official prosecution sanction required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against Kejriwal.

Section 197 of CrPC lays down that prior sanction of the government would be required to prosecute a person accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting act in the discharge of his official duty, and no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with previous sanction.

However, it was later submitted that the ED was relying on the earlier sanction granted to prosecute Kejriwal in the Excise Policy case registered by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.

Today, Senior Advocate Rebecca John argued that the sanction given to the CBI was not sufficient to prosecute Kejriwal in the money laundering proceedings. She also submitted that while the sanction for the CBI case was given on August 14, 2024, the trial court had taken cognizance of the money laundering complaint on July 9, 2024.

"This does not bear any significance. How can there be any omnibus sanction, cutting across different statutes? Repeatedly, they come to court and say ED and CBI cases are separate. What is this blowing hot and blowing cold?" John contended.

John further submitted that the ED subsequently got a separate sanction to prosecute Kejriwal in the PMLA case. However, she pointed out that the sanction was received a month after the present petition was filed.

She questioned how SG Mehta could have made a submission in November 2024 that ED had got the prosecution sanction.

"Not attributing any motive, but clearly the learned Solicitor General was misled into making that statement on first date of hearing. Because all their subsequent actions show they had nothing when I challenged the proceedings before this Hon'ble Court and the first order came to be passed by this Hon'ble Court," John said.

During the hearing, when the Court pointed to the discrepancy in the date of order granting prosecution sanction against Kejriwal, Senior Advocate N Hariharan said that the entire proceedings on the PMLA complaint against Kejriwal are illegal.

"We can't understand, this whole thing is a hotch-potch. There is nothing. It is an attempt to post facto remedy things...this whole thing needs to quashed, this is all without jurisdiction," the senior counsel said.

When the Court questioned the ED, the central agency's Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain submitted that he would seek a clarification in this regard.

"I will check it up," he submitted.

The Court then said that the file be produced.

"Produce the file," the single-judge said.

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari appeared for Sisodia.

Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21. While he remained in custody in the ED case, the CBI also formally arrested him on June 26, in a move that Kejriwal's lawyers termed an "insurance arrest" to make sure he stays in jail if he is granted bail in the ED case. The Supreme Court on July 12 granted him interim bail in the ED case. On September 13, he was granted bail in the CBI case as well by the top court.