Delhi HC to appoint amici for Kejriwal, Sisodia in CBI case

The Delhi High Court will appoint amici curiae to represent Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others in the CBI liquor policy case after they boycotted proceedings over a rejected recusal plea

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday said it will appoint senior lawyers as amici curiae to represent AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak in the CBI case against their discharge in the liquor policy case.

The former Delhi chief minister and MLAs boycotted the hearing before Justice Sharma after the judge refused to recuse herself on their applications alleging conflict of interest and apprehension of bias.

---

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma deferred the hearing on the CBI’s petition challenging the trial court decision till May 8, observing that it would be appropriate to proceed with the matter once someone is appointed to represent them. “I will appoint an amicus. I will appoint somebody. I will appoint three seniors in this case,” Justice Sharma said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, asked if the court was making the appointment for Kejriwal and others who were unrepresented in the proceedings, the judge replied in the affirmative.
“We will list it on Friday. I will pass an order on amicus and then start hearing,” she added. After Justice Sharma dismissed their applications seeking her recusal in the case on April 20, Kejriwal,

Sisodia and Pathak wrote to Justice Sharma, stating they would not appear before her personally or through a lawyer and would follow “Mahatma Gandhi’s path of Satyagraha”. On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case, observing that the case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.

On March 9, Justice Sharma’s bench stayed the trial court’s recommendation on the initiation of departmental action against the CBI’s investigating officer in the liquor policy case.

While issuing notice to all 23 accused on CBI’s plea against their discharge, Justice Sharma said certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appeared erroneous and needed consideration. Subsequently, Kejriwal, Sisodia and other respondents moved an application seeking the recusal of the judge.

They claimed that the judge’s children are empanelled central government lawyers who receive work through solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appears for the CBI in the excise case.

On April 20, Justice Sharma junked the recusal plea, saying that judges cannot recuse themselves to satisfy a litigant’s unfounded apprehension of bias. Pathak, Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai had also sought her recusal.