The Delhi High Court has issued a fresh notice to AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal on petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), challenging his acquittal in two cases related to alleged non-compliance with summons in the now-scrapped excise policy matter.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the earlier notice had not been served, prompting the court to reissue it and list the matter for hearing on July 22. The ED maintains that Kejriwal deliberately ignored repeated summons and avoided joining the investigation, while the AAP leader has previously contested the legality and timing of these notices.
The development signals a continuing legal and political standoff, with questions around due process, accountability, and institutional fairness remaining central to the case.
Court Flags Lapse, Reissues Notice
During the hearing, the Delhi High Court underscored a procedural gap that stalled earlier proceedings. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the previous notice issued to Arvind Kejriwal had not been successfully served, stating, “Registry reports that (he is) not served.
I will issue fresh notice. Respondent has not been served.” This observation led the court to direct that a fresh notice be issued, ensuring that the respondent is formally informed and given an opportunity to present his case. The matter has now been scheduled for further hearing on July 22.
The Enforcement Directorate, which has challenged Kejriwal’s acquittal, told the court that it had issued a notice as early as April 1. However, according to the agency, no one appeared on behalf of the AAP chief in response. The ED has argued that the trial court erred in granting relief, asserting that Kejriwal had been repeatedly summoned during the course of the investigation but failed to comply.
In its submissions, the agency has maintained that such non-compliance was not incidental but deliberate, alleging that the AAP leader sought to evade questioning by raising what it termed “frivolous objections”. These claims form the crux of the ED’s appeal, which seeks to revisit and overturn the earlier acquittal.
Excise Policy: Legal-Political Backdrop
The legal dispute is rooted in the wider controversy surrounding Delhi’s now-withdrawn excise policy, which has been under scrutiny for alleged irregularities in its formulation and implementation.
Introduced with the stated aim of reforming the liquor trade in the national capital, the policy was later scrapped amid allegations of procedural lapses and financial misconduct. Investigative agencies, including the ED, have since pursued multiple lines of inquiry, examining whether there were undue benefits extended to certain stakeholders.
In this context, Kejriwal’s role has come under focus, particularly regarding his response to repeated summons issued during the investigation. Earlier, a trial court had granted him relief in the cases concerning non-compliance, effectively acquitting him of the charges. The ED’s decision to challenge this acquittal in the High Court reflects its position that the matter warrants closer judicial scrutiny.
Beyond the courtroom, the case has also taken on a significant political dimension. The Aam Aadmi Party has consistently maintained that the allegations are politically motivated, framing the investigation as part of a broader pattern of targeting opposition leaders.
Kejriwal himself has, on previous occasions, questioned the intent and timing of the summons, suggesting that they were designed to disrupt governance and political functioning. On the other hand, the ED has emphasised that its actions are guided strictly by evidence and legal procedure, rejecting claims of bias.
The interplay between legal arguments and political narratives has made the excise policy case one of the most closely watched developments in recent times. It also highlights the challenges inherent in high-profile investigations involving elected representatives, where public perception and institutional credibility are constantly under scrutiny.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
At its core, this case brings into focus the fundamental principles that underpin a functioning democracy: accountability, transparency, and the rule of law. Investigative agencies must have the independence and authority to examine allegations of wrongdoing, particularly in matters involving public office. At the same time, the processes they follow must be beyond reproach, ensuring that every individual regardless of their position is treated fairly and afforded due process.
Equally, public figures have a responsibility to engage constructively with legal institutions. While questioning the legitimacy of investigations is within their rights, outright non-compliance or prolonged legal standoffs risk eroding public confidence in the system. For citizens, the perception of fairness is just as important as fairness itself.
Also read: Flooded in Minutes: Bengaluru’s Bookworm Store Loses 5,000 Books to Sudden Downpour
