E-Paper
Delhi HC grants time to Kejriwal to reply to CBI plea against discharge in excise policy case
On Sunday, Kejriwal approached the SC appealing the decision of the Delhi high court chief justice rejecting his plea to transfer the case from Sharma’s bench.
The Delhi High Court on Monday granted time to Delhi’s former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and 22 others to file by April 5, their replies in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) appeal against a trial court’s order discharging them in the excise policy case.
A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma fixed April 6 as the next date of hearing in CBI’s appeal against the trial court’s February 27 ruling.
On Sunday, Kejriwal approached the Supreme Court appealing the decision of the Delhi high court chief justice rejecting his plea to transfer the case from Sharma’s bench. He also filed a special leave petition challenging Justice Sharma’s March 9 order staying the trial court’s direction that the CBI officer who investigated the case be investigated.
“The respondents state that they have challenged the order of this court and filed a writ petition. Irrespective till this court gets an order from the apex court of staying the proceedings, the case is to be proceeded as per law. Interim order to continue. List it on April 6,” Justice Sharma said in her order.
This was after Kejriwal’s lawyer N. Hariharan, Arun Ramachandran Pillai’s lawyer Pramod Dubey, and Sarath Reddy’s lawyer Vikas Pahwa urged the court to grant them at least four weeks to submit their responses. Hariharan further informed the court that a writ petition as well as a special leave petition (SLP) had been filed before the Supreme Court. To be sure, while the writ petition sought transfer of the case to another judge, the SLP challenged the high court’s March 9 order.
Also Read: Delhi HC CJ denies Kejriwal request to shift CBI appeal in excise policy case
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for CBI along with Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, opposed the request, arguing that the respondents should not be granted more than a week’s time to file their replies. He submitted that if they had already filed a petition in the Supreme Court and were seeking an adjournment on that basis, they should first remove the objections and get the matter listed there.
He further contended that this was not even a case where a reply was necessary, adding that there was an emergency in hearing its appeal, as the order under challenge was “exceptionable.”
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and 21 others, concluding that CBI’s material did not even disclose a prima facie case. In his 601-page order, special judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue also directed a departmental inquiry against the “erring investigating officer” who framed charges against the accused in the absence of material evidence, holding that the IO abused his official position to conduct an unfair investigation.
CBI approached the high court, assailing the trial court’s order on the ground that the verdict was passed by “ignoring” the evidence gathered by the agency, the findings were “inherently wrong”.
The high court on March 9 had issued notice in the agency’s appeal, observing that the trial court’s observations were “prima facie erroneous.” The court had also stayed till March 16 the trial court’s order directing departmental action against CBI’s investigating officer and observations against him, noting that the remarks were “prima facie foundationally misconceived, especially when made at the stage of charge itself”. The judge had also requested that the trial court defer the Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering case stemming from the CBI case and await the outcome of the CBI’s appeal against the February 27 verdict.
On March 11, Kejriwal and others wrote to Delhi high court’s chief justice DK Upadhyaya to transfer CBI’s appeal to a different bench from the current bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, which was denied by way of a communication issued by the high court’s registrar general, Arun Bhardwaj, on March 13.
The March 13 communication stated that the chief justice observed that the CBI petition had already been assigned to justice Sharma’s bench in accordance with the current roster, adding that any decision on recusal would have to be taken by the concerned judge.
