The Delhi High Court Thursday granted Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convenor Arvind Kejriwal and 20 others a “last opportunity” to respond to the Enforcement Directorate’s plea before the court, seeking expungement of adverse remarks made against the agency by a trial court while discharging the accused in the alleged ‘liquor policy scam’ case.

The HC had sought a response from the 23 accused in the case, including former CM Kejriwal and his deputy Manish Sisodia, among others, on March 10. However, only two, Abhishek Boinpally and Vinod Chauhan, have filed their responses so far.

The court recorded in its order that while the respondents were granted further time on March 19 to file their responses to the ED’s plea and the remaining respondents are seeking further time, “last opportunity is being granted” to them for filing their responses by April 22.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that failure to file responses by April 22 will mean their opportunity to respond to the ED’s plea will “automatically stand closed”.

Justice Sharma also noted that the arguments in the case will be heard on the next date of hearing on April 22.

While the 23 accused were discharged in the CBI case by a trial court last month, the ED case accusing them of money laundering remains pending before a trial court. The CBI, however, has a challenge against the discharge order of the trial court pending before the Delhi HC.

The ED, in its plea, has taken objection to 18 paragraphs in the trial court’s nearly 600-page verdict. While the trial court was dealing only with the CBI case, the ED has objected to instances where the trial court, in its judgment, had referred to allegations under PMLA.

These include instances where the trial court, in its judgment, observed: “… When such allegations are sought to be re-characterised or ‘dressed up’ as CBI cases or PMLA proceedings, an additional and more serious constitutional concern arises,” and “if investigative agencies such as the CBI or enforcement authorities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) were permitted to enter the electoral arena merely on allegations of ‘cash spending’, ‘illegal funding’, or ‘unaccounted expenditure’, the inevitable consequence would be the criminalisation of electoral competition.”