Delhi excise policy case: ED says ‘trial court judge had no business to make adverse remarks’
The agency moved the Delhi High Court seeking expungement of the observations; the court has issued notice to the 23 discharged in the CBI case as well as the CBI.
The Delhi High Court Tuesday issued notice and sought responses from AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and the 21 accused who were discharged by a trial court in the CBI’s excise police case in a petition by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking expungement and deletion of adverse remarks against the agency.
After the CBI took objection to adverse remarks by the trial court judge, including against its investigating officer (IO) in the case, the ED also sought deletion of “certain adverse, sweeping and unwarranted observations” made against the agency by the trial court.
The ED has made the 23 accused as well as CBI parties to the petition; they have to respond to the notice by March 19, when the court will hear the matter next.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the ED, referred to some of the 18 paragraphs flagged by the agency.
Arguing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, he said: “In a matter where the ED [case] is a standalone offence, and [ED case] is not concerned [before the court adjudicating on the CBI offence]… judge had no business to make such remarks and observations.”
Senior advocates N Hariharan and Vikram Chaudhari, appearing for the accused, however impressed that ED has taken the observations “out of context”.
Hariharan argued, “It is all being placed out of context of the judgment… this will be a piecemeal kind of situation… if you [ED] produce things that suit you, I’ll produce those things [parts of the judgment] which don’t suit you.”
Story continues below this ad
Justice Sharma orally remarked during the hearing, “What I’ve read [in the trial court’s judgment], it shows, whatever the judge said, it was not in the context of this case… he felt it was an unfair investigation and made general observations like many judges do, including me… I’m just trying to see if these are all just general observations.”
Noting that the trial court’s judgment is already under challenge before Justice Sharma herself, she further remarked orally, “Now this entire judgment is under challenge… so when I’ll be deciding that [CBIs revision plea], I’ll be reading this [paragraphs of the judgment which ED has objected to].”
The ED has objected to instances where the trial court, in its judgment, had referred to allegations under the PMLA. These include observations such as: “… When such allegations are sought to be re-characterised or ‘dressed up’ as CBI cases or PMLA proceedings, an additional and more serious constitutional concern arises,” and “If investigative agencies such as the CBI or enforcement authorities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) were permitted to enter the electoral arena merely on allegations of ‘cash spending’, ‘illegal funding’, or ‘unaccounted expenditure’, the inevitable consequence would be the criminalisation of electoral competition.”
A detailed order is expected later in the day.
Story continues below this ad
On Monday, the HC had stayed the trial court’s observations against the CBI IO.
“Such scathing remarks recorded in the impugned order, and the reasons given for passing such remarks including, concluding that the investigating officer has abused his official position to conduct unfair investigation, are prima facie foundationally misconceived especially when made at the stage of charge itself,” Justice Sharma noted while granting limited stay over the observations against the IO.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
