Delhi HC slams Kejriwal, Sisodia, Pathak over dismissal pleas

The Delhi High Court on Monday took a dim view of former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Durgesh Pathak filing applications seeking dismissal of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s appeal against their discharge in the Delhi excise policy case, instead of filing replies despite being given multiple opportunities

The Delhi High Court on Monday took a dim view of former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Durgesh Pathak filing applications seeking dismissal of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s appeal against their discharge in the Delhi excise policy case, instead of filing replies despite being given multiple opportunities.

(Getty Images/iStockphoto)

A bench of justice Manoj Jain, however, granted the three leaders and other respondents a final opportunity to respond to the CBI’s appeal within four weeks. The court fixed October 5 and 6 for hearing CBI’s arguments.

“You have chosen to file an application taking some preliminary objection. You have not filed your replies… You cannot be selective. You do not touch the merits and only take preliminary objections,” the court told the lawyers representing Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak. “You have not even filed replies despite the grant of so many opportunities… July 16, there is an order by this court… to file replies within two weeks. Did you file the replies?”

The court was hearing applications by the three leaders seeking dismissal of the CBI’s appeal before they are required to respond on merits. Their lawyers also sought time to respond to written submissions filed by the agency.

Senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari, appearing for Pathak, argued that the CBI’s appeal was not maintainable and was not properly constituted.

Senior advocate Hariharan, representing Kejriwal, said the CBI had filed 103-page written submissions two days before the hearing, along with two annexures containing a chronology of events, the alleged individual roles of the accused, the alleged money trail and a tabulation of errors the agency claimed were made by the trial court.

He argued that the respondents needed time to respond because the submissions contained “additional grounds” that were not part of the original appeal. The grounds in the CBI’s petition had so far been “generic in nature”, he said, seeking four weeks to file a response.

CBI’s lawyers -- solicitor general Tushar Mehta along with additional solicitor generals SV Raju and DP Singh -- opposed the applications seeking dismissal of CBI’s appeal terming the same as “vexatious” and frivolous. Mehta also opposed the request seeking four weeks, pointing out that the high court had already granted the respondents two weeks on July 16 to file their replies and contended that this was a “childish way” to get the matter adjourned.

The court eventually granted the respondents four weeks, but made clear that the opportunity would be final.

“If there are certain contentions which are in the written submissions, that were not raised in the revision, then we will give you time to file a reply so that on the next date, the prosecution should be allowed to begin its arguments,” the court said.

The CBI’s appeal stems from a February 27 trial court order that discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the excise policy case. The trial court had held that the material placed by the CBI did not disclose even a prima facie case against the accused. The agency subsequently challenged the discharge before the high court.

The case has been marked by a prolonged procedural dispute involving Kejriwal and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, before the matter came before justice Jain.

After CBI challenged the discharge order, the appeal was initially heard by justice Sharma. On March 9, she stayed a trial court direction for departmental action against a CBI officer, terming the remarks prima facie misconceived, and deferred proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Kejriwal subsequently sought transfer of the matter from justice Sharma’s bench. The plea was rejected by then chief justice DK Upadhyaya on March 13.

On April 5, Kejriwal, Sisodia and others sought Justice Sharma’s recusal. The judge rejected the plea on April 20. Kejriwal subsequently informed her through a letter on April 27 that he would boycott the proceedings, followed by similar letters from Sisodia and Pathak.

On May 5, the court decided to appoint senior advocates as amicus curiae to represent the three leaders, but the matter was deferred on three occasions.

Justice Sharma initiated contempt proceedings on May 14 and subsequently withdrew herself from hearing both the CBI appeal and the contempt case. The three leaders agreed to participate in the appeal after it was listed before Justice Jain on May 25.

On July 16, justice Jain had granted Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak a final opportunity to file their replies and scheduled August 17 and 18 for the CBI’s arguments. However, days before the scheduled hearing, the three respondents moved applications seeking dismissal of the appeal.