The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has petitioned the Delhi High Court to expunge adverse remarks made by a trial court in the Delhi Excise Policy case. The ED argues it was not a party to the proceedings and was not heard before the remarks were made.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has approached the Delhi High Court seeking the expunging of several adverse observations made against it in the trial court’s order dated February 27, 2026, by which 23 accused persons were discharged in the CBI’s Delhi Excise Policy case.
ED Challenges ‘Sweeping’ Trial Court Remarks
The agency has contended that the remarks concerning its investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were made even though the ED was not a party to the proceedings and was never given an opportunity to be heard.
In its petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), earlier Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the ED has sought deletion of multiple paragraphs of the trial court’s judgment which, according to it, contain “sweeping, unwarranted and extraneous observations” regarding the agency’s investigation into alleged money laundering linked to the excise policy case.
The agency has argued that the impugned remarks were recorded while deciding discharge applications in the CBI case and therefore fell outside the scope of the issues before the trial court.
Objections to Comments on Electoral Arena and PMLA Powers
According to the ED, the special court was only required to determine whether charges could be framed in the CBI’s corruption case, yet it proceeded to comment extensively on the functioning and investigation of the ED under the PMLA without examining the material collected by the agency.
The petition states that the trial court made observations suggesting that investigative agencies like the ED should not enter the “electoral arena” on allegations of illegal funding or campaign expenditure and that such matters should first fall within the domain of the Election Commission of India.
The ED contends that such remarks were unnecessary for deciding the discharge applications and have the effect of prejudicing the ongoing money laundering proceedings.
It has further objected to the trial court’s remarks regarding arrests and prosecutions under the PMLA, including observations that the agency sometimes files prosecution complaints to avoid the statutory consequence of default bail and invokes coercive powers before the predicate offence is fully tested.
‘Violation of Natural Justice,’ Says ED
The ED submits that these findings amount to a critique of the statutory framework and contradict binding precedents of the Supreme Court upholding the powers under the PMLA.
According to the agency, the trial court’s comments were made “behind the back” of the ED, without examining the evidence collected during its investigation or affording it an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
The petition states that if such observations are allowed to remain on record, they would cause serious prejudice to the ED’s ongoing prosecution under the PMLA and undermine its statutory mandate.
PMLA as an Independent Offence
The ED has also argued that the offence of money laundering is legally recognised as an independent offence, and investigations under the PMLA can proceed independently of the investigation or trial in the predicate offence.
It has relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, to contend that the ED is not required to wait for the completion of investigation or filing of a chargesheet in the scheduled offence before exercising its statutory powers.
Background of the Excise Policy Investigation
The petition further states that the CBI registered an FIR in August 2022 regarding alleged irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, following which the ED recorded an ECIR and initiated a separate investigation under the PMLA.
While the CBI filed several charge sheets against 23 accused persons, the ED filed a prosecution complaint and multiple supplementary complaints against several accused persons, including public officials and others alleged to be involved in laundering the proceeds of crime.
Specific Relief Sought and Prior Court Observations
The ED has therefore urged the High Court to expunge paragraphs 109, 1048 to 1052, 1062, 1083, 1106 and 1124 to 1132 of the trial court’s order, contending that the remarks constitute judicial overreach and were made in violation of settled principles governing the recording of adverse observations against persons or agencies not before the court.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had observed that the trial court’s remarks against the investigating agency appeared prima facie “foundationally misconceived”, particularly when made at the stage of framing of charge. The High Court stayed the operation of those observations and issued notice to the respondents for their replies, while directing that the remarks against the investigating officer remain in abeyance until further consideration. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)