New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has issued a fresh notice to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal following his absence from a court hearing on Wednesday. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s bench was responding to a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which challenges a lower court’s decision to acquit Kejriwal of charges related to the alleged evasion of multiple summons. The court noted that despite a previous notice, the respondent chose not to appear, prompting the issuance of a new summons with the next hearing scheduled for April 29, 2026.
Representing the federal agency, senior advocate Zoheb Hossain argued that the trial court erred in its acquittal. The ED maintains that since the receipt of the summons was never disputed by the Chief Minister’s legal team, the failure to comply should have been treated as a straightforward violation of the law. The agency further contended that settled judicial precedents establish that undisputed documents do not require further proof, making the lower court’s dismissal of the case technically flawed. The High Court has now requested the formal Trial Court Records (TCR) to review the previous proceedings in detail.
This legal development follows a significant ruling on February 27, where a trial court cleared Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and 21 others in a related excise policy case. In that instance, the court had described the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) case as “completely baseless” and found that the prosecution had failed to withstand judicial scrutiny. While the CBI has also appealed that acquittal in the High Court, the current proceedings focus specifically on the ED’s separate complaint regarding the non-compliance with its investigative summons.
The ongoing legal battle remains a central point of political friction in the national capital as the AAP leadership continues to contest the various investigations into the now-scrapped liquor policy. With the High Court now set to examine the merits of the ED’s appeal at the end of April, the focus remains on whether the earlier relief granted to the AAP convenor will be upheld or overturned. For now, the court’s request for the underlying records suggests a comprehensive review of the investigative process is underway.
