Delhi Excise Policy case: HC to appoint amici curiae for Kejriwal, Sisodia, Pathak; detailed hearing next week

The Delhi High Court on Friday said it would appoint amici curiae to represent AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak in the CBI's plea challenging their discharge in the Delhi excise policy case, after noting that the three respondents were not appearing in the proceedings.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the Court was awaiting consent from advocates proposed to assist the Court as amici curiae and adjourned the matter to Monday for their formal appointment.

Also read: HC to appoint counsels as AAP netas boycott excise case hearing


"Now we have three persons who are not appearing. I am awaiting consent for some amici curiae to represent them," the Court observed.

The hearing on Friday began with submissions regarding objections raised by some respondents over the maintainability of the CBI's petition.

At that stage, Justice Sharma remarked, "Okay, we will hear on maintainability?"

The Solicitor General, appearing for the CBI, responded, "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 since Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak had opted not to participate in the case, the Court considered it appropriate to appoint amici curiae before proceeding further with arguments.

"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 Bench stated.

The case relates to alleged irregularities in the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. The CBI has challenged the trial court order discharging Kejriwal and other accused persons in the matter.

Also read: BJP 'hijacked' democracy, Punjab will stop their 'vijay rath': Arvind Kejriwal

The present situation follows Kejriwal's decision earlier this week to abstain from proceedings before Justice Sharma after the High Court rejected his plea seeking recusal of the judge from hearing the case.

In its earlier order, the High Court had held that the allegations seeking recusal were based on conjectures and did not establish any legally sustainable apprehension of bias. The Court had also observed that judicial independence cannot be undermined by unsupported allegations or perceptions regarding possible outcomes of a case.