Today, On 16th March, In Excise Policy Case, CBI opposed the adjournment request by Arvind Kejriwal and others, but the Delhi High Court granted them time to respond to the petition challenging their discharge in the alleged liquor policy scam corruption case today.
The Delhi High Court heard the petition filed by the CBI challenging the trial court order that had discharged Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others in the excise policy case.
The matter came up before Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma.
At the beginning of the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for CBI told the Court that “notices had already been served on all respondents earlier and again after the Court issued notice.”
Mehta argued,
“This is matter where there are different aspects apart from legal aspects. Replies won’t be necessary because we need to read the order impugned and the records. We seriously object to the order. It cannot remain on record even for a second more than what is necessary”.
The Bench then asked whether any of the respondents had filed their response. When the Court asked if more time was being requested, the respondents replied yes.
Senior Advocate N Hariharan, appearing for Arvind Kejriwal, informed the Court that a Special Leave Petition has already been filed before the Supreme Court of India. Opposing the adjournment request, SG Mehta argued that if the pendency of the SLP was being cited as a reason to delay proceedings, then the filing defects before the Supreme Court registry should be cleared quickly so that the matter can be listed.
In response, Adv Hariharan stated,
“He does not control or manage the functioning of the Supreme Court registry.”
SG Mehta insisted that this was not a matter where a detailed reply or rejoinder was required, because the High Court only needed to look at the impugned order and the case records.
He argued that the trial court’s order was an exceptional one and “should not remain on record any longer.”
The Court, however, said that the respondents should be given the opportunity to file their reply.
SG Mehta then urged the Court to restrict any extension to one week, again submitting that discharge matters are mainly decided based on the existing record. He also told the Court that the repeated requests for additional time were unfair and formally recorded his objection.
The Court finally decided to give the respondents two weeks’ time to file their reply and listed the matter after two weeks.
During the hearing, Adv Hariharan pointed out that the impugned order runs to nearly 500 pages and said adequate time should be allowed instead of assuming the request was because the order favoured the respondents. He also requested the Court to record that an SLP has been filed before the Supreme Court, as that could impact ongoing proceedings.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma noted in her order that both a Special Leave Petition and a writ petition have been filed before the Supreme Court. The Bench also remarked that it had already recorded the fact that the respondents had informed the Court about approaching the Supreme Court.
At this point, SG Mehta responded sharply, saying that,
“Such conduct has become a recurring pattern where allegations are made and then the parties avoid proceedings.”
Adv Hariharan immediately asked what allegations were being referred to, adding that they were only asking for time to file their reply.
The Court fixed April 6 as the next date of hearing. Adv Hariharan requested if the matter could be taken up a week later, but the Bench refused to change the date.
SG Mehta also sought continuation of the interim orders, and the Court agreed.
He further remarked that,
“Such conduct causes prejudice to the judicial system as well as to the litigating parties.”
The hearing then concluded, and the High Court will now take up the matter on April 6.
Read Live Coverage