The Delhi High Court on Friday deferred the hearing on the CBI’s petition challenging the discharge of AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others in the Delhi excise policy case till May 11.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the court was awaiting consent from certain senior lawyers who may be appointed to represent Kejriwal, Sisodia and AAP MLA Durgesh Pathak, who are currently unrepresented in the matter.
“I will appoint on Monday. Arguments will begin on Tuesday,” Justice Sharma observed during the hearing.
The former Delhi chief minister and other AAP leaders have boycotted proceedings before Justice Sharma after the judge declined to recuse herself from the case despite applications alleging conflict of interest and apprehension of bias.
Earlier this week, the court had indicated that proceedings would continue once legal representation was arranged for the unrepresented parties.
During Friday’s hearing, the court also noted that discharged accused Vijay Nair and Arvind Kumar Singh had filed applications challenging the maintainability of the CBI’s petition.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, informed the court that replies to the applications had already been filed and that the agency would address the issue during arguments.
On February 27, a trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case, observing that the prosecution case failed to withstand judicial scrutiny and stood “discredited in its entirety”.
After Justice Sharma rejected their recusal pleas on April 20, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak wrote to the judge stating that they would neither appear personally nor through lawyers and would instead follow “Mahatma Gandhi’s path of Satyagraha”.
On April 5, the high court had closed the AAP leaders’ right to file replies after no one appeared on their behalf, while also indicating that senior advocates could be appointed as amici curiae to represent them.
Earlier, on March 9, the court had stayed the trial court’s recommendation for departmental action against the CBI investigating officer in the excise policy case.
While issuing notices to the 23 accused on the CBI’s plea against their discharge, Justice Sharma had remarked that certain findings of the trial court appeared prima facie erroneous and warranted examination.
The recusal applications alleged a possible conflict of interest on the ground that the judge’s children are empanelled as central government lawyers and receive assignments through the Solicitor General, who represents the CBI in the case.
Rejecting the plea on April 20, Justice Sharma held that judges cannot recuse themselves merely to satisfy “unfounded apprehensions of bias” raised by litigants.
