Liquor policy case: HC gives 2 weeks to Kejriwal, Sisodia to respond to CBI’s plea

The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted a final opportunity to AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak, asking them to respond within two weeks to the CBI’s plea against a trial court order discharging them in the liquor policy case.

Justice Manoj Jain deferred hearing on CBI’s revision petition after none appeared for the discharged accused persons due to work abstention by high court lawyers, and listed the case for hearing arguments on behalf of the investigating agency on August 17 and 18.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, said the three AAP leaders were earlier given several opportunities by the high court to file their replies, and the case has been “sufficiently delayed.”  “In any case if I am giving a date, we will make it clear that they would be at liberty to file a reply,” Justice Jain responded. The judge added that a time frame shall be fixed for hearing submissions on behalf of the discharged accused persons. “The report of the registry would indicate that so far no reply has been received from respondent nos. 8, 18 & 19. Although opportunity was granted to them earlier on several occasions, in view of interest of justice, one last and final opportunity is granted to them to file replies within 2 weeks from today,” ordered the court. “Matter would be taken up on 17 & 18th of August at 2:30 for hearing from the side of the revisionist,” it added.

The senior law officer urged the court to set an earlier date in July or early August, remarking that the date fixed was “a little too long”.

Justice Jain, however, said there were other cases pertaining to MP/MLAs pending in his court and it was not possible to accommodate the CBI’s request. The judge nonetheless assured SG Mehta that he would reassess the possibility of having the case on an earlier date. The court also asked the parties to file their written submissions. On May 25, the court had deferred the hearing till July 16 on CBI’s petition to await the presence of counsel on behalf of the unrepresented AAP leaders, who had earlier boycotted the hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

High court lawyers are abstaining from work since July 14 to protest against a possible enhancement in the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts here from Rs 2 crore to Rs 10 crore.

The excise policy case came before Justice Jain after Justice Sharma released it from her board earlier this month after initiating contempt action against Kejriwal, Sisodia, Pathak and others for their alleged “villifying” social media posts against her.

When the matter was listed before Justice Jain on May 19, he had asked the CBI to inform the AAP leaders about the change of bench.

On February 27, the trial court discharged former Delhi chief minister Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case, ruling that it was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety. The CBI moved the high court and, 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, Pathak and some other respondents sought Justice Swarana’s recusal in the case on an apprehension of bias and conflict of interest.

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 May 14, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, however, initiated criminal contempt proceedings against them and other AAP leaders for their “vilifying” social media posts against her and said that the matter would be sent to another bench.