Delhi Liquor 'Scam': Arvind Kejriwal, Other Former Accused Move Recusal Application In High Court

(MENAFN- Live Mint) Delhi Liquor 'scam': Former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and other former accused moved recusal application before Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma in High Court, Aam Admi Party (AAP) spokesperson said, adding that Kejriwal will appear and argue in person tomorrow.

This comes after Delhi High Court on Thursday granting a final chance to Kejriwal, his former deputy Manish Sisodia and others to file their responses to a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking the removal of“unwarranted” remarks made against it by the trial court while discharging them in the liquor policy case, according to PTI.

Noting that none of the respondents, barring one, had submitted their replies despite requesting time during the previous hearing, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the court would proceed to hear arguments in the matter on April 22.

"Last opportunity is granted to file reply, failing which the right to file reply will close. Arguments will be heard on the next date of hearing. List on April 22," the judge mentioned.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the agency, told the court that except for Vinod Chauhan, none of the other respondents had filed their replies to the petition.

Also Read | Who is Justice Swarana Sharma? Kejriwal wants her to be removed from excise case

On March 19, the court had granted time until April 2 to Kejriwal and the other respondents to submit their responses to the ED's plea seeking the removal of the remarks against it.

At the time, the ED's counsel had argued that filing replies was unnecessary, as the petition only challenged the trial court judge's observations about the agency, which did not affect the respondents' discharge.

What did ED say?

In its petition, the ED stated that the trial court's remarks were entirely unrelated to the CBI's case. It also said that it was neither a party to those proceedings nor given an opportunity to present its case.

Also Read | Kejriwal to Modi: Did Iran assure safe passage for Indian ships through Hormuz?

The ED's plea stated, "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.”

It added,“Therefore, the aforesaid paragraphs which concern the investigation independently conducted by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) deserve to be expunged as it amounts to a clear case of judicial overreach...”

On March 10, the court directed Kejriwal and the other respondents to file their responses to the ED's plea.

Also Read | Chadha rebuts AAP with Rajya Sabha speeches on Punjab: 'Picture abhi baaki hai'

Earlier, on February 27, the trial court had discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the Delhi liquor policy case, observing that the CBI's case could not withstand judicial scrutiny and was entirely discredited.

The court noted that the alleged conspiracy was purely speculative, based on conjecture and surmise, and lacked any admissible evidence.

It further stated that forcing the accused to undergo a full criminal trial in the complete absence of legally acceptable material would not serve the cause of justice.

In its order, the trial court emphasized that a system allowing prolonged or indefinite detention based on a provisional and untested allegation risked“degenerating into a punitive process” and raised“concerns of considerable constitutional significance,” where individual liberty was "imperilled" by invoking the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the report noted.

The court noted that the matter gained added importance in cases where an accused is arrested for money laundering and must meet the stringent twin conditions for bail, often resulting in extended pre-trial detention.

It also pointed out that, according to established law, money laundering cannot exist independently and must be linked to a legally sustainable predicate offence, yet current practice often inverted this principle.

While acknowledging that the objectives of the PMLA were legitimate and compelling, the trial judge stressed that the breadth of statutory powers could not override constitutional protections.

MENAFN05042026007365015876ID1110944847