Delhi excise policy case: ED says ‘trial court judge had no business to make adverse remarks’

Tue Mar 10 07:18:24 UTC 2026: Headline: Delhi High Court Reviews ED’s Objections to Trial Court Remarks in Excise Policy Case

The Story:
The Delhi High Court is now reviewing objections raised by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding adverse remarks made by a trial court in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) excise policy case. The court issued notices to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and the 21 other accused who were discharged by the trial court. The ED seeks to expunge or delete these remarks, arguing that they are unwarranted and outside the scope of the trial court’s jurisdiction, especially concerning the ED’s separate Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case.

Key Points:
* The ED filed a petition seeking the expungement of adverse remarks made by a trial court against the agency in the CBI’s excise policy case.
* Notices have been issued to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and 21 other accused individuals.
* The ED argues that the trial court’s remarks were outside the scope of its jurisdiction, especially concerning the ED’s separate PMLA case.
* The ED flagged 18 paragraphs in the trial court’s judgment.
* The High Court Justice noted the trial court’s judgment is already under challenge and she will be reading the paragraphs which the ED has objected to.
* The High Court had previously stayed the trial court’s observations against the CBI investigating officer.

Key Takeaways:
* The ED’s move indicates a strong defense of its investigative processes and a concern over potential reputational damage caused by the trial court’s remarks.
* The High Court’s involvement suggests a need to clarify the boundaries of judicial commentary in cases involving multiple investigative agencies and related charges.
* The case highlights the ongoing scrutiny of the Delhi excise policy and its associated investigations by both the CBI and the ED.
* The court’s eventual decision will likely set a precedent for how trial courts should address the actions of investigative agencies in their judgments.
* The timing of the case is important, with the next hearing set for March 19, indicating an expedited review process.

Read More