The Delhi High Court on Friday deferred hearing on the CBI’s petition challenging the trial court order discharging accused in the excise policy case to May 11. 

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said she was awaiting consent from senior lawyers to represent AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak, who have chosen neither to appear personally nor appoint counsel to contest the CBI’s plea.   

“There are three persons who are not represented. I am awaiting the consent of some persons who will be representing them... I will appoint on Monday... Arguments will begin on Tuesday,“ said Justice Sharma. 

During the proceedings, the court also noted that discharged accused Vijay Nair and Arvind Kumar Singh had filed applications questioning the maintainability of the CBI’s petition.   

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, said the agency had filed its response to the applications and that he would address the issue while advancing submissions. 

On February 27, the trial court discharged Mr. Kejriwal, Mr. Sisodia and 21 others in the excise policy case, ruling that the prosecution case was unable to withstand judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety. 

On March 9, Justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s recommendation seeking departmental action against the CBI investigating officer in the case. 

While issuing notice to all 23 accused on the CBI’s plea challenging the discharge order, Justice Sharma observed that certain findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges appeared, prima facie, to be erroneous and required consideration. 

Subsequently, Mr. Kejriwal, Mr. Sisodia and other respondents moved an application seeking the judge’s recusal, alleging conflict of interest and apprehension of bias. They contended that the judge’s children were empanelled as central government lawyers and received assignments through the Solicitor General, who is appearing for the CBI in the matter. 

On April 20, Justice Sharma declined the recusal plea, saying that judges cannot recuse themselves to satisfy a litigant’s unfounded apprehension of bias, leading to the three AAP leaders refusing to contest the case.