The Delhi High Court deferred the CBI’s challenge to the trial court’s discharge order in the liquor policy case and set May 11 for the next hearing. It awaited consent from senior lawyers for the AAP leaders involved.
The Delhi High Court postponed the hearing on the CBI’s petition challenging the trial court’s discharge order in the liquor policy case, scheduling the next date for May 11.
The court said it was waiting for the consent of certain senior lawyers to represent AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Durgesh Pathak.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated that she would issue the required order on Monday, May 11, and start hearing the matter on Tuesday, May 12.
Justice Sharma said,
“There are three persons who are not represented. I am awaiting the consent of some persons who will be representing them. There are three persons who are not represented. I am awaiting the consent of some persons who will be representing them. I will appoint on Monday… Arguments will begin on Tuesday,”
Earlier, Kejriwal, along with other former Delhi Chief Minister and MLAs, boycotted the hearing before Justice Sharma after the judge declined their applications requesting recusal. They had alleged conflict of interest and apprehension of bias.
This week, the court had indicated that the case would be best progressed only after representation was arranged for the unrepresented parties.
During Friday’s proceedings, the court also noted that discharged accused persons Vijay Nair and Arvind Kumar Singh have filed applications questioning the maintainability of the CBI’s petition.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, said the agency had already filed its response and would address the maintainability issue when he begins his submissions.
Earlier, On February 27, the trial court had discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 21 others in the liquor policy case, observing that the case could not withstand judicial scrutiny and stood “discredited” in its entirety.
After Justice Sharma rejected the recusal applications on April 20, Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak wrote to the judge saying they would not appear personally or through counsel, and would follow “Mahatma Gandhi’s path of Satyagraha.”
On April 5, the court recorded that none appeared for the AAP leaders, closed their time to file replies, and stated it would pass an order appointing three senior lawyers as amici curiae to represent them.
In March, Justice Sharma’s bench had stayed the trial court’s recommendation regarding departmental action against the CBI investigating officer. While issuing notice to all 23 accused on the CBI’s plea against their discharge, the court also remarked that certain observations and findings at the stage of framing of charges appeared prima facie incorrect and required consideration.
Subsequently, Kejriwal, Sisodia, and other respondents filed an application seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal, alleging that the judge’s children were empanelled as lawyers for the Union of India and that they received work through the Solicitor General, who appears for the CBI in the case.
Earlier, On April 20, Justice Sharma dismissed the recusal plea, stating judges cannot recuse themselves solely to satisfy a litigant’s unfounded apprehension of bias. Pathak, Vijay Nair, and Arun Ramchandra Pillai had also sought recusal.