E-Paper
Delhi HC to appoint 3 senior lawyers as amicus for Kejriwal, Sisodia in excise policy case
Delhi High Court judge Swarana Kanta Sharma said she would commence hearing CBI’s arguments on merits after appointing an amicus on Friday
Delhi high court judge Swarana Kanta Sharma on Tuesday said that she would appoint three senior advocates as amicus curiae on Friday to represent former CM Arvind Kejriwal, former deputy CM Manish Sisodia and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Durgesh Pathak in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI’s) appeal against their discharge in the excise policy case, following their decision to boycott the proceedings.
To be sure, an amicus curiae is a lawyer or expert appointed by a court to assist it in a case.
This was after the court noted that neither Kejriwal nor Sisodia nor Pathak had chosen to appear.
Justice Sharma said she would commence hearing CBI’s arguments on merits after appointing an amicus on Friday.
Also Read | ‘Hope of getting justice broken’: Kejriwal writes to Delhi HC Justice Sharma, refuses to appear in court
“Three (Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak) are not appearing? I will appoint a senior in this case as amicus for respondents 8 (Sisodia) 18 (Arvind Kejriwal) and 19 (Durgesh Pathak).I will appoint, and thus I think it will be appropriate that I hear the argument of CBI once I appoint an amicus. Now we will list it on Friday. Friday, I will pass an order regarding Amicus, and then I will start hearing. I’ll appoint somebody, i will appoint 3 seniors in this case,” the judge said.
A timeline of Kejriwal's case
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 high court.
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.
Kejriwal sought transfer of the case to another judge on March 11, which was rejected on March 13. He, along with Sisodia and four others, then moved an application before the judge seeking her recusal. On April 20, the judge dismissed the applications, holding there was no “demonstrable cause” for recusal and warning that stepping aside on perceived bias would set a disturbing precedent.
Kejriwal and other AAP leaders refused to appear for hearing
However, a week after the April 20 verdict, when the court was to commence hearing CBI’s arguments on merits, Kejriwal wrote a letter to Justice Sharma saying he would boycott proceedings. In his letter, the AAP convenor had stated that after dismissal of his recusal application, he had carefully reflected on the options available to him.
Stating that his “well-grounded apprehensions” remained unresolved, he said the judgment left him with the impression that his legitimate concerns had been perceived as a personal attack on the judge and an “assault” on the institution itself. Following this, Manish Sisodia and subsequently Durgesh Pathak also wrote similar letters conveying the same decision.
Despite the letters, the judge on Wednesday had granted Kejriwal, Sisodia, Durgesh and four others the last chance to file their replies.
The matter will now be heard on Friday.
To be sure, following the letters, HT had previously spoken to legal experts to understand the options available to the court in light of the letters.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh and advocate Kanhaiya Singhal said that the option available with the court is to appoint an amicus. Singh said that the court is not powerless to hear the case in this situation and the court could exercise its option to appoint a designated senior or any other advocate as an amicus curiae (friend of court) to assist the court to the issues of law as well as facts involved in the case. The amicus does not represent them but only assists the court and acts as a neutral player as his job is to assist the court, he added.
He further explained that the amicus would primarily aid the court on legal issues, such as whether discharge was appropriate at this stage, whether contradictions in statements could have been considered, and whether the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applies at the stage of framing charges if the court so desires.
