Top News

On Friday, the Delhi High Court indicated that it is awaiting the agreement of lawyers representing Aam Aadmi Party leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Durgesh Pathak in a case linked to the Delhi excise policy. The court announced that it would issue an order regarding this matter on Monday, while discussions on the validity of a petition challenging the discharge order by the CBI will commence on Tuesday.

Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma mentioned that the court is waiting for the consent of proposed advocates to assist as amicus curiae, leading to a postponement of the case until Monday for their formal appointment.

The court remarked, "Currently, three individuals are not present. I am awaiting consent from some amicus curiae to represent them. The hearing began with arguments concerning objections raised by some respondents regarding the admissibility of the CBI's petition."

Related Reading: Liquor Policy Case: Court's Stance on Kejriwal's 'Satyagraha', Amicus Curiae to Present Arguments

At this stage, Justice Sharma inquired, "Shall we proceed with the hearing on admissibility?" The Solicitor General representing the CBI responded, "Madam, this is my petition. I should be heard first." The court was informed that responses to objections regarding admissibility had already been filed. During the proceedings, the judge reiterated that since Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak opted not to participate in the case, it was appropriate for the court to appoint assisting judges (amicus curiae) before further debate. The bench stated, "We will address this on Monday. We will not hear arguments on Monday. The assisting judges will be appointed on Monday, and we will begin discussions on Tuesday." The case pertains to alleged irregularities in the now-repealed Delhi excise policy for 2021-22. The CBI has challenged the lower court's order that acquitted Kejriwal and other accused individuals.

Related Reading: Battle for Rajya Sabha Seats: Kejriwal Declares Selective Revenge Against BJP

The current situation arose after Kejriwal's decision to stay away from proceedings earlier this week, following the High Court's dismissal of his petition to remove Justice Sharma from the case. The court stated that the allegations for the removal of the judge were based on conjecture and did not establish any legally valid apprehension of bias. The court also noted that unfounded allegations or assumptions regarding potential outcomes of a case cannot undermine judicial independence.