The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed fresh notice to be issued to AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and party leader Durgesh Pathak in the Delhi excise policy case, even as a Division Bench separately initiated contempt proceedings against them and other AAP leaders over remarks targeting Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
The developments came days after the excise policy matter was transferred from Justice Sharma’s Bench following her decision to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra and Pathak.
Hearing the CBI’s plea challenging the discharge of 23 accused persons in the excise policy case, including Kejriwal, Sisodia and BRS leader K Kavitha, Justice Manoj Jain noted that three respondents remained unrepresented despite earlier proceedings in the matter.
The Court was informed that Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak had stopped appearing before the previous Bench after Justice Sharma rejected their recusal pleas.
Justice Jain observed orally that although the transfer of the case had already been widely reported and the respondents were expected to be aware of it, fresh notice would still be issued to ensure procedural fairness. The Court indicated that once all parties appear, it would become clear whether they are satisfied with the present roster allocation and stressed that the ideal course would be to hear all sides together.
The Bench directed that fresh notices be served on the unrepresented respondents and permitted all parties to file replies before the next hearing on May 25.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, argued that notices had already been issued in March and all the accused were fully aware of the proceedings. He submitted that the trial court’s discharge order could not withstand legal scrutiny and said the case, involving allegations of a major “scam” in the national capital, required urgent adjudication.
Mehta told the Court that despite repeated opportunities granted earlier, some respondents had still not filed replies in the matter.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for one of the accused, argued that applications questioning the maintainability of the CBI’s revision petition should first be decided. He contended that the lawyers who filed the revision were private counsel and not duly authorised public prosecutors.
The Court, however, orally observed that replies would have to be filed irrespective of the pending objections regarding maintainability.
In a parallel development, a Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja issued notice to Kejriwal, Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and other AAP leaders in the criminal contempt proceedings initiated over alleged remarks and social media posts against Justice Sharma.
The Bench directed the High Court Registry to preserve all electronic records, social media posts and publications relied upon in the contempt proceedings and granted the alleged contemnors four weeks to file their responses. The Court also said an amicus curiae would be appointed to assist it in the matter.
The contempt case has now been listed for hearing on August 4.
The controversy erupted after Justice Sharma rejected applications filed by Kejriwal and other accused seeking her recusal from hearing the CBI’s challenge to their discharge. The accused had alleged apprehension of bias.
After the recusal plea was dismissed, Kejriwal and Sisodia wrote to the judge informing her that they would boycott proceedings before her and would neither appear personally nor through counsel.
Justice Sharma later initiated contempt proceedings, taking note of the boycott letters, public statements, social media posts and a video released by Kejriwal explaining his decision not to participate in proceedings before her. Following the contempt action, she directed that the excise policy matter be transferred to another Bench.
