E-Paper
After Kejriwal and Sisodia, AAP's Durgesh Pathak refuses to appear before Justice Kanta Sharma
After Kejriwal and Sisodia, AAP's Durgesh Pathak refuses to appear before Justice Kanta Sharma
New Delhi, Following in the footsteps of A leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, party leader Durgesh Pathak has also refused to participate in the proceedings in the ongoing liquor excise case being heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court.
In a letter addressed to the judge, Pathak said he agrees with the concerns raised by Kejriwal who alleged a conflict of interest against the judge and added that he will not appear in person or through a legal representative before the court.
Pathak, Sisodia and Kejriwal are parties to a revision plea filed by the CBI challenging their discharge in the liquor policy case.
"The present communication pertains to the above-mentioned revision petition, which is currently sub-judice before this court," Pathak said in the letter.
He said he took the decision after going through Kejriwal's letter dated April 27, in which concerns over bias and perceived lack of impartiality were raised.
"Accordingly, I too have resolved not to participate further in the present proceedings, either personally or through legal representation. The vakalatnama, if any, executed in my favour in this matter may be treated as having been duly discharged," he said.
Pathak said his letter should not be seen as a sign of disrespect towards the court and reaffirmed his faith in the Constitution and the judiciary.
"I take this opportunity to unequivocally affirm my abiding faith in the Constitution of India and in the institutional integrity of the judiciary of this nation," he said.
He requested that the letter be taken on record and that the proceedings be conducted in a manner the court considers appropriate and just.
Meanwhile, Leader of Opposition in the Delhi Assembly Atishi questioned why Justice Sharma did not recuse herself from the case after Kejriwal raised concerns, claiming that she had done so in other matters recently.
She asked what was different in the present case that a recusal was not being considered.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
