The BRICS TimesAfter AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak refused to appear before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma citing bias concerns the Delhi High Court decided to appoint three senior advocates as amicus curiae to represent them in the Delhi liquor policy CBI case. The next hearing is slated for May 8.
Delhi High Court Plans to Name Independent Lawyers for Absent AAP Leaders in Liquor Case
The Delhi High Court moved decisively on Tuesday stepping in to ensure representation for AAP leaders who have chosen to stay away from courtroom proceedings in the high-stakes Delhi excise policy case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma announced that three senior advocates will serve as amicus curiae court-appointed independent lawyers for Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak. The trio refused to appear before her, either personally or through their own legal teams.
“I will appoint an amicus. I will appoint somebody. I will appoint three seniors in this case,” Justice Sharma said during the hearing.
Why Did Kejriwal and Sisodia Stay Away?
The AAP leaders have been boycotting hearings before Justice Sharma a decision rooted in their earlier failed bid to get her removed from the case.
Kejriwal, Sisodia and several other respondents had earlier filed applications demanding that Justice Sharma recuse herself. They alleged a conflict of interest claiming that the judge’s children are empanelled as central government lawyers. These lawyers, they argued, receive briefs through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta the same official who represents the CBI in this very case.
Justice Sharma, however, firmly rejected this argument on April 20. She said judges cannot step aside simply to satisfy a litigant’s unfounded suspicion of bias.
AAP Invokes Gandhi’s Satyagraha
After losing the recusal bid, Kejriwal and Sisodia wrote separate letters to Justice Sharma declaring they would no longer appear before her. They framed their decision as a conscious act of civil resistance.
Sisodia wrote, “I have carefully considered the substance of that letter… I find myself in respectful agreement with the stand taken by him, which is based on Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings on Satyagraha.”
Pathak sent a similar letter shortly after, aligning himself with the stand of his senior party colleagues.
Court Defers Hearing to May 8
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, sought clarity on whether the amicus curiae would be appointed specifically for Kejriwal and the unrepresented respondents. Justice Sharma confirmed this.
The hearing on the CBI’s petition which challenges the trial court’s discharge order now stands deferred to May 8. The court said formal amicus appointments will come first, before hearings resume.
“We will list it on Friday. I will pass an order on amicus and then start hearing,” Justice Sharma added.
What Is the CBI’s Case About?
The CBI challenged a trial court verdict from February 27 which had discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case. The trial court had said the case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and had been discredited in its entirety.
The High Court, while issuing notice to all 23 accused persons, flagged that certain trial court observations appeared prima facie erroneous and needed closer examination.
On March 9, Justice Sharma’s bench also stayed the trial court’s recommendation to initiate departmental action against the CBI’s investigating officer in the case.
Courtroom Video Controversy Adds Another Layer
The case carries additional baggage. During an earlier hearing when Kejriwal argued the recusal application personally videos of his courtroom submissions surfaced online. The footage spread widely on social media triggering a separate controversy over alleged unauthorised recording inside the court premises. That matter too remains under consideration before the High Court.
With Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak now firmly outside the courtroom and the case too important to pause indefinitely the Delhi High Court’s decision to bring in independent senior lawyers keeps the legal process moving forward.
