HC asks Kejriwal, Sisodia to respond to ED plea to expunge trial court remarks

New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought the stand of former CM Arvind Kejriwal, ex-deputy CM Manish Sisodia and 21 others, who had recently been discharged in CBI's excise policy case, on a plea by Enforcement Directorate (ED) to expunge "unwarranted" remarks made against it by the trial court.Posting the matter for further hearing on March 19, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked that the observations in the trial court order appeared to be general in nature and have nothing to do with the case. "He (special judge Jitendra Singh) was not saying it in the context of this case. He was feeling whatever he was feeling.... He thought it was an unfair investigation, so he made observations as some judges, including me, generally do," Sharma orally observed. Additional solicitor general S V Raju, who appeared for ED, contended that Singh "had no business" making adverse statements and direct allegations in a case ED was not even a party to. "ED was condemned without a hearing," Raju submitted and urged HC to give an interim order.Raju also sought a direction that the observations would not influence any other case, but this was opposed by lawyers representing some of the accused. They contended the remarks highlighted by the agency were without context and could not be viewed in a "piecemeal" manner.In its petition, ED said the trial court's remarks were wholly extraneous to CBI's case. It said ED was neither a party in those proceedings nor afforded any opportunity to be heard. "If such sweeping, unguided, bald observations are permitted to stand... grave and irreparable prejudice would be caused to the public at large as well as the petitioner," ED said. "Therefore, the aforesaid paragraphs which concern the investigation independently conducted by ED under PMLA deserve to be expunged as it amounts to a clear case of judicial overreach," it added.Last month, the trial court while discharging the 23 accused, pulled up CBI, saying its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.It concluded that the alleged conspiracy was nothing more than a speculative construct resting on conjecture and surmise, devoid of any admissible evidence. To compel the accused to face the rigours of a full-fledged criminal trial in the stark absence of any legally admissible material did not serve the ends of justice, the trial court said, highlighting that a procedure permitting prolonged or indefinite incarceration based on a provisional and untested allegation risked "degenerating into a punitive process" and raised a "concern of considerable constitutional significance" where individual liberty was "imperilled" by invoking PMLA.