Delhi HC to appoint amicus for Kejriwal, Sisodia in excise case
Delhi High Court to appoint senior lawyers as amicus curiae for Arvind Kejriwal and AAP leaders in excise policy case.
Delhi High Court will appoint senior lawyers to represent Arvind Kejriwal and two other AAP functionaries who boycotted proceedings. The court deferred hearing on CBI’s appeal against their discharge in the liquor policy case.
Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Delhi High Court, excise policy case, CBI, AAP, amicus curiae, liquor policy, Satyagraha, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
NEW DELHI: Taking note that former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and two other AAP functionaries facing CBI’s appeal against their discharge in the liquor policy case have chosen not to appear, Delhi high court on Tuesday said it would appoint senior lawyers as amicus to argue their stand.
Kejriwal, former deputy CM Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak informed the court last week about their intention to “boycott” the hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma after the judge refused to recuse herself on their applications alleging conflict of interest and apprehension of bias.
“Who all are not represented? Three are not appearing, I will appoint a senior lawyer as amicus for them. So 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 when I will pass an order regarding amicus, and then I will start hearing. I will appoint somebody. I will appoint three seniors in this case,” Justice Sharma orally observed, deferring the hearing on the CBI’s petition till May 8.
The court’s move follows TOI’s earlier report highlighting how — following the letter by Kejriwal announcing his decision not to appear — HC may appoint an amicus curiae (friend of the court) to ensure the matter gets heard and decided on merits where a fair evaluation of all legal contentions is made.
A key reason for bringing in independent lawyers as amicus is Supreme Court’s mandate that criminal revision/appeals can’t be “dismissed in default”, that is, there is no procedure to end the case without hearing the parties even if they remain absent.
The apex court stressed the revision/appeal had to be decided on merits, casting it as the duty of the court.
After Justice Sharma dismissed their applications on April 20, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak wrote to the court stating they would not appear before her personally or through a lawyer and would follow “Mahatma Gandhi’s path of Satyagraha”.
In February, the trial court had discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case, observing that it 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 CBI’s investigating officer in the liquor policy case.
While issuing notice to all 23 accused on CBI’s plea against their discharge, HC said certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appeared erroneous and needed consideration.
Kejriwal, Sisodia and other respondents had claimed that the judge’s children were empanelled central govt lawyers receiving work through solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for CBI in the excise policy case.
HC had noted that judges couldn’t recuse themselves to satisfy a litigant’s unfounded apprehension of bias.
