Delhi High Court has allowed former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia additional time to respond to a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate, which has challenged adverse observations made by a trial court in the excise policy case.The matter, which has drawn sustained political and legal attention, came up before the high court on Thursday, where counsel representing the central agency argued that certain remarks made by the trial court could prejudice ongoing proceedings. The Enforcement Directorate has sought to have those observations set aside, contending that they go beyond the scope of the proceedings and may affect the merits of the case at later stages.
Appearing for Kejriwal and Sisodia, defence counsel requested more time to file detailed replies to the agency’s petition. The high court granted the request, acknowledging the complexity of the issues raised and the need for comprehensive responses before further arguments are heard. The court is expected to take up the matter again after the replies are filed.
The case centres on alleged irregularities in the now-scrapped excise policy for the national capital, which investigators claim led to undue benefits for certain private entities. The Enforcement Directorate has been probing the matter under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, building on earlier findings by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Trial court proceedings in the case had earlier drawn attention when the judge made remarks questioning aspects of the investigation and the manner in which evidence was presented. These observations were seen by the agency as unfavourable, prompting it to approach the high court for relief. Legal experts note that while trial courts are empowered to make observations based on material before them, higher courts often intervene if such remarks are considered excessive or prejudicial.
Kejriwal and Sisodia, both senior leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party, have consistently denied wrongdoing. They have described the investigation as politically motivated, maintaining that the excise policy was designed to increase transparency and boost revenue. Their legal teams have also argued that the case relies heavily on statements that have been contested and that due process must be strictly followed.
The Enforcement Directorate, on the other hand, has maintained that its probe is based on financial trails and documentary evidence suggesting a nexus between policymakers and beneficiaries. Officials have indicated that the agency’s challenge before the high court is limited to the trial court’s remarks and does not alter the substantive allegations under investigation.
The high court’s decision to grant time reflects a procedural step rather than a determination on merits, but it underscores the layered nature of the litigation. Multiple proceedings linked to the excise policy case are running in parallel, including bail applications, challenges to arrests, and petitions concerning the admissibility of evidence.
Observers of the case point out that the outcome of the Enforcement Directorate’s plea could influence how trial courts frame their observations in complex financial investigations. If the high court decides to expunge or modify the remarks, it may set a precedent for how investigative findings are scrutinised during early stages of trial.
The excise policy case has evolved into one of the most closely watched legal battles involving prominent political figures in the capital. It has also sparked broader debate on the use of financial crime statutes in cases involving public policy decisions. Critics of such investigations argue that they risk blurring the line between administrative decisions and criminal liability, while proponents insist that stringent oversight is necessary to ensure accountability.
Court proceedings have also highlighted procedural questions, including the extent to which investigative agencies can rely on statements from approvers and the standards required to establish a money laundering offence. Legal practitioners following the case say these issues are likely to shape not only this matter but also future prosecutions under similar statutes.