Liquor policy case: Delhi HC issues fresh notice to Kejriwal on ED plea
New Delhi, April 29 : The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the issuance of a fresh notice to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor and former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging his acquittal in complaint cases related to alleged non-compliance with summons in the excise policy money laundering matter.
During the hearing, a single-judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that, as per the registry’s report, the earlier notice issued to Kejriwal on April 1 had not been served. “Registry reports that (he is) not served. I will issue a fresh notice. Respondent has not been served,” Justice Sharma observed, posting the matter for further hearing on July 22.
The ED’s appeal comes against the backdrop of the acquittal granted by the Rouse Avenue Court in complaint cases filed by the ED, which had accused Kejriwal of deliberately skipping multiple summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Earlier, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Paras Dalal had acquitted Kejriwal in the said complaints, holding that the material on record did not warrant his prosecution for non-compliance.
The ED had alleged that despite the issuance of five summons on different dates, Kejriwal failed to appear before the Central agency, prompting it to initiate prosecution proceedings. It had contended that non-compliance by a high public functionary would set a wrong precedent.
Recently, Kejriwal wrote to Justice Sharma stating that he would neither appear before the court in person nor through counsel in matters linked to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy. In his communication, Kejriwal said he had lost hope of getting justice from the judge and would follow Mahatma Gandhi’s path of “Satyagraha”.
“My hope of getting justice from Justice Swarana Kanta is shattered. Therefore, I have decided to follow Gandhiji's Satyagraha. I have made a decision based on the voice of my conscience. I will reserve the right to appeal Justice Swarn Kanta's decision in the Supreme Court,” the letter stated.
Manish Sisodia also sent a similar communication to the judge, stating that he too would abstain from further participation in the matter. He said the decision was guided by conscience and not hostility towards the judiciary.
The controversy comes days after Justice Sharma had rejected Kejriwal’s plea seeking her recusal from hearing the criminal revision petition filed by CBI assailing the order of the Rouse Avenue Court, which had discharged all 23 accused, including Kejriwal and Sisodia, in the corruption case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy introduced by the then AAP-led Delhi government.
Pronouncing the order on April 20, Justice Sharma had said that though the “easier path” would have been to recuse without hearing the application, she chose to decide the matter on merits in the interest of institutional integrity.
Observing that the issue involved not merely a legal dispute but the credibility of judicial institutions, the judge had said that “a litigant cannot be permitted to create a situation that lowers the judicial process”.
“A courtroom cannot be a theatre of perception. If such applications are accepted, it would not be justice administered but ‘justice managed’,” Justice Sharma had added.
During the hearing, a single-judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that, as per the registry’s report, the earlier notice issued to Kejriwal on April 1 had not been served. “Registry reports that (he is) not served. I will issue a fresh notice. Respondent has not been served,” Justice Sharma observed, posting the matter for further hearing on July 22.
The ED’s appeal comes against the backdrop of the acquittal granted by the Rouse Avenue Court in complaint cases filed by the ED, which had accused Kejriwal of deliberately skipping multiple summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Earlier, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Paras Dalal had acquitted Kejriwal in the said complaints, holding that the material on record did not warrant his prosecution for non-compliance.
The ED had alleged that despite the issuance of five summons on different dates, Kejriwal failed to appear before the Central agency, prompting it to initiate prosecution proceedings. It had contended that non-compliance by a high public functionary would set a wrong precedent.
Recently, Kejriwal wrote to Justice Sharma stating that he would neither appear before the court in person nor through counsel in matters linked to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy. In his communication, Kejriwal said he had lost hope of getting justice from the judge and would follow Mahatma Gandhi’s path of “Satyagraha”.
“My hope of getting justice from Justice Swarana Kanta is shattered. Therefore, I have decided to follow Gandhiji's Satyagraha. I have made a decision based on the voice of my conscience. I will reserve the right to appeal Justice Swarn Kanta's decision in the Supreme Court,” the letter stated.
Manish Sisodia also sent a similar communication to the judge, stating that he too would abstain from further participation in the matter. He said the decision was guided by conscience and not hostility towards the judiciary.
The controversy comes days after Justice Sharma had rejected Kejriwal’s plea seeking her recusal from hearing the criminal revision petition filed by CBI assailing the order of the Rouse Avenue Court, which had discharged all 23 accused, including Kejriwal and Sisodia, in the corruption case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy introduced by the then AAP-led Delhi government.
Pronouncing the order on April 20, Justice Sharma had said that though the “easier path” would have been to recuse without hearing the application, she chose to decide the matter on merits in the interest of institutional integrity.
Observing that the issue involved not merely a legal dispute but the credibility of judicial institutions, the judge had said that “a litigant cannot be permitted to create a situation that lowers the judicial process”.
“A courtroom cannot be a theatre of perception. If such applications are accepted, it would not be justice administered but ‘justice managed’,” Justice Sharma had added.
