The Delhi High Court announced on Friday that it will appoint amici curiae to represent Aam Aadmi Party leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak in the Central Bureau of Investigation's plea challenging their discharge in the Delhi excise policy case.
The Court noted that the three respondents had not appeared in the proceedings.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated that the Court was waiting for consent from advocates proposed to assist as amici curiae and adjourned the matter to Monday for their formal appointment. The judge observed, “Now we have three persons who are not appearing. I am awaiting consent for some amici curiae to represent them.”
The hearing began with submissions regarding objections raised by some respondents about the maintainability of the CBI’s petition. At that stage, Justice Sharma asked, “Okay, we will hear on maintainability?” The Solicitor General, representing the CBI, replied, “My lady, this is my petition. I should be heard first.” The Court was informed that replies to the maintainability objections had already been filed.
During the proceedings, the judge reiterated that because Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak had chosen not to participate, the Court considered it appropriate to appoint amici curiae before continuing with arguments. The Bench stated, “We will keep it on Monday. On Monday, we won’t hear arguments. On Monday, amici will be appointed. From Tuesday, we will hear arguments.”
The case concerns alleged irregularities in the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. The CBI has challenged the trial court order that discharged Kejriwal and other accused persons in the matter.
This follows Kejriwal’s decision earlier this week to abstain from proceedings before Justice Sharma after the High Court rejected his plea seeking the judge’s recusal from the case. In its previous order, the High Court held that the allegations seeking recusal were based on conjecture and did not establish any legally sustainable apprehension of bias. The Court also observed that judicial independence cannot be undermined by unsupported allegations or perceptions regarding possible case outcomes.