New Delhi: Former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia, and another Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) functionary, Durgesh Pathak, will now be represented by their respective lawyers in the Delhi High Court proceedings related to the now-scrapped liquor policy case. On Monday, Justice Manoj Jain noted that three vakalatnama, or authorization letters for advocates to represent a party, appeared to have been filed on behalf of the three unrepresented AAP leaders. They had earlier boycotted the hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
Hearing Deferred to July 16
Justice Jain deferred further hearing to await the presence of the counsel, considering that lawyers were abstaining from work in the high court. The court listed for hearing on July 16 the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) plea against a trial court order that discharged 23 individuals in the liquor policy case. “If they have filed vakalatnama, on the next date, we can see which date can be given and a schedule can be drawn,” Justice Jain observed as the court adjourned the matter.
CBI Seeks Urgent Hearing
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, urged that the matter be urgently taken up on Wednesday for fixing the hearing schedule before the summer vacation. However, Justice Jain said the court was giving priority to matters concerning life and liberty, and thus declined to expedite the hearing.
Background of the Case
The excise policy case came before Justice Jain after Justice Sharma released it from her board earlier this month. She initiated contempt action against Kejriwal, Sisodia, Pathak, and others for their alleged “vilifying” 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 functionaries about the change of bench.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 21 others in the case, ruling that the case 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 investigating officer in the case. While issuing notice to all 23 accused on the 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.
Recusal and Contempt Proceedings
Subsequently, Kejriwal, Sisodia, Pathak, and some other respondents sought Justice Sharma’s recusal in the case on an apprehension of bias and conflict of interest. After Justice Sharma dismissed their applications seeking her recusal on April 20, Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak wrote to her, 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 Sharma initiated criminal contempt proceedings against them and other AAP functionaries for their “vilifying” social media posts against her and said that the matter would be sent to another bench.
The development marks a significant turn in the high-profile case, as the three AAP leaders had previously boycotted the proceedings. With the filing of vakalatnama, they have now secured legal representation, paving the way for the court to proceed with the hearing on the CBI's plea.
