E-Paper
Excise case: HC grants last opportunity to Kejriwal, Sisodia, others to file response to CBI’s appeal
The Delhi High Court granted AAP leaders Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak a final chance to respond to a CBI appeal in the excise policy case by Saturday.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted a last opportunity to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak, and four other people to file their reply in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s appeal against the trial court’s order discharging them in the excise policy case.
A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma asked them to file their response by Saturday, even as Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak had written letters to Justice Sharma saying that they would boycott the hearing.
“One more last opportunity granted to file the reply, by Saturday, I will start hearing the matter on Monday,” the court said.
On Monday, Kejriwal, the former Delhi chief minister, wrote to the judge stating that neither he nor his counsel would appear in the matter, adding that after the dismissal of his plea seeking the judge’s recusal, he had reflected on the options available to him.
Kejriwal had said his “well-grounded apprehensions” remained unresolved and that the judgment gave him the impression that his concerns had been viewed as a “personal attack on the judge” and an “assault” on the institution.
Sisodia, the former deputy chief minister, sent a similar letter on Tuesday, followed by Pathak on Wednesday.
The court was informed that of the 23 individuals discharged by the trial court, 16 had already filed their replies, and the others were yet to do so.
The judge also issued notice on an application filed by Sarvesh Mishra, an alleged associate of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) parliamentarian Sanjay Singh, seeking vacation of the court’s March 9 order and directed the CBI to file its response.
Although the court was scheduled to begin hearing the matter on merits and the agency’s arguments over the next two days, including Wednesday and Thursday, it adjourned the proceedings to Monday as the trial court records had not been received.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others, holding that the CBI’s material did not even disclose a prima facie case, prompting the agency to challenge the order before the HC.
On March 9, Justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental action against a CBI officer, calling the remarks prima facie misconceived, and deferred ED proceedings.
On March 11, Kejriwal sought a transfer of the case to another judge, which was rejected on March 13. He, along with Sisodia and four others, then moved an application before Justice Sharma seeking her recusal. On April 20, Justice Sharma dismissed the applications, holding there was no “demonstrable cause” for recusal and warning that stepping aside based on perceived bias would set a disturbing precedent.
