The Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that it will appoint senior lawyers as amici curiae to represent AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak in the CBI case related to the Delhi Excise Policy after they refused to pursue it before Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma.
The boycott was announced by the AAP leaders after Justice Sharma refused to recuse herself on their applications alleging conflict of interest and apprehension of bias.
Justice Sharma said, "I will appoint an amicus. I will appoint somebody. I will appoint three seniors in this case." She deferred the hearing on the CBI's petition, which challenges the trial court decision, till May 8.
While deferring the matter, she called it appropriate till someone is appointed to represent them. Appearing for the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, asked if the court was making the appointment for Kejriwal and others who were unrepresented in the proceedings.
The judge replied in the affirmative. "We will list it on Friday. I will pass an order on amicus and then start hearing," she added.
What is an amicus curiae and what's next in the case?
An amicus curiae is an experienced lawyer appointed or allowed by the court to assist it with legal matters, including legal arguments, clarifying issues, or ensuring fair proceedings. Unlike other lawyers, litigants and respondents, an amicus curiae is not a party to a case.
After the amici curiae appointment, the legal proceedings in the court will continue as routine without Kejriwal, Ssodia, Patjhak or others.
What is the row?
On February 7, the trial court discharged Kejriwal and others in the alleged Liquor policy scam, stating that the case was unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety. The trial court had also recommended a departmental action against CBI's investigating officer in the case.
Justice Sharma's bench, however, stayed the trial court verdict on March 9 and issued notices to all 23 accused on CBI's plea.
She said that some observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appeared erroneous and needed consideration.
ALSO READ: Delhi Excise Policy Case: After Arvind Kejriwal, Sisodia Refuses To Pursue Case Before HC Judge
Kejriwal and others then filed a recusal petition against Justice Sharma, citing her attendance to an RSS event.
They argued that the judge's children are empanelled central government lawyers and receive work through solicitor general Tushar Mehta, the CBI lawyer.
On April 20, Justice Sharma junked the petition, saying that judges cannot recuse themselves to satisfy a litigant's unfounded apprehension of bias.
Subsequently, Kejriwal and others refused to represent themselves in person or through a lawyer before Justice Sharma, calling it Mahatma Gandhi's path of 'Satyagraha'.
(With PTI Inputs)