The Central Bureau of Investigation filed caveats in the Supreme Court of India on pleas by Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia in the Delhi excise policy case, seeking to be heard before any interim relief is granted.
NEW DELHI: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed caveat applications in the Supreme Court in connection with petitions by former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, senior AAP leader Manish Sisodia and other accused in the Delhi excise policy matter.
The caveats seek to ensure the agency is heard before the apex court passes any orders. A caveat is typically filed when a party expects urgent listing and wants an opportunity to be heard before any interim relief is granted.
Reports say the CBI has lodged three separate caveats in response to Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by Kejriwal, Sisodia and others. Those petitions challenge orders of the Delhi High Court and seek transfer of proceedings. The SLPs currently appear as “under defect” on the Supreme Court website, meaning certain procedural formalities are yet to be completed before the matters can be listed.
The petitioners have approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking transfer of the case away from the Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. They have raised concerns about remarks made during earlier hearings particularly in bail proceedings tied to the excise policy case arguing that some prima facie observations made in prior hearings create a reasonable apprehension about the fairness of future proceedings.
The plea also refers to a recent order by Justice Sharma, who while hearing the CBI’s appeal against a trial court order that had discharged all accused, stayed the trial court proceedings. Kejriwal has filed a petition under Article 32 and a Special Leave Petition challenging Justice Sharma’s March 9 order.
In that order, Justice Sharma stayed a trial court direction to initiate departmental proceedings against a CBI officer who had investigated the excise policy case. The High Court also directed the trial court to defer proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and observed prima facie that certain findings recorded by the trial court when discharging Kejriwal and 22 others appeared erroneous. Earlier, Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya had declined Kejriwal’s request for transfer of the matter.
In a communication sent through the High Court’s Registrar General on March 13 to eight applicants including Kejriwal, the Chief Justice said the petition had been assigned to Justice Sharma.
The communication quoted the Chief Justice as saying,
“as per the current roster. Any call of recusal has to be taken by the Hon’ble judge. I, however, do not find any reason to transfer the petition by passing an order on the administrative side,”
Kejriwal had written to the Chief Justice on March 11, expressing apprehension that if the matter remained before Justice Sharma, the case “may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality.”
The dispute stems from proceedings connected to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy case. On February 27, a trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 others. The CBI challenged that order, and the revision petition is pending before Justice Sharma. On March 9, while issuing notice in the revision plea, the High Court stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental action against the investigating officer and asked the trial court to defer money laundering proceedings, which are based on the CBI’s FIR.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE