The Delhi High Court on Friday (May 8, 2026) deferred hearing till May 11 on the CBI's petition challenging the trial court's discharge order in the liquor policy case, saying that it was awaiting consent of certain senior lawyers to represent AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said she would pass the necessary order on the appointment on Monday (May 11) and begin hearing the matter on Tuesday (May 12).

"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.

The former Delhi Chief Minister and MLAs have boycotted the hearing before Justice Sharma after the Judge refused to recuse herself on their applications alleging conflict of interest and apprehension of bias.

Earlier this week, the judge said that it would be appropriate to proceed with the matter after someone was appointed to represent the unrepresented parties.

During the proceedings on Friday (May 8), the court also noted that discharged accused persons Vijay Nair and Arvind Kumar Singh have filed applications challenging the maintainability of the CBI's petition.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, said that the agency has filed its response to the applications and he would address the issue when he begins his submissions.

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

After Justice Sharma dismissed their applications seeking her recusal in the case on April 20, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak wrote a letter to Justice Sharma, saying they would not appear before her personally or through a lawyer and would follow "Mahatma Gandhi's path of Satyagraha".

On April 5, the court noted that none appeared for the AAP leaders in the proceedings and closed their right to file their replies. It, however, said that it would pass an order appointing three senior lawyers as amici curiae to represent them.

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 the CBI's plea against their discharge, Justice Sharma also said that certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appeared erroneous and needed consideration.

Subsequently, Mr. Kejriwal, Mr. Sisodia and other respondents moved an application seeking recusal of the judge, alleging conflict of interest and an apprehension of bias. They claimed that the judge's children are empanelled central government lawyers and they receive work through Mehta who appears for the CBI in the excise case.

On April 20, Justice Sharma junked the recusal plea, saying that judges cannot recuse themselves to satisfy a litigant's unfounded apprehension of bias.

Pathak, Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai had also sought her recusal.