@barandbench: [Excise policy case] Delhi H...

[Excise policy case]

Delhi High Court to hear today CBI's challenge to Arvind Kejriwal and others' discharge.

Case has been assigned to Justice Manoj Jain after Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma transferred the matter and initiated criminal contempt against Kejriwal and other AAP leaders.
@ArvindKejriwal @msisodia @AamAadmiParty

Matter taken up.

SG Tushar Mehta appears for CBI.

Bench asks which respondents are represented.

Court notes that A 8 (Sisodia), A 18 (Kejriwal) and A 19 (Durgesh Pathak) are not represented before the Court today.

SG: We have filed an affidavit stating that notice of March 9 is served on everyone. Parties had appeared, filed an application...
Court: We understand that they are aware.

SG: This is a case where, because of serious allegations and scientific investigation, a chargesheet was filed. At the time of charge, everybody argued and opposed framing of charge. There is a very very serious order and it is our argument that it cannot stand any judicial scrutiny.

SG refers to the 29 April order.

SG: It was listed for arguments. It's a scam in the capital of the national. It has to be decided at the earlier.

He now refers to 20 April 2026 order.

Court: You have filed the petition so we have to begin with your arguments.

Sr Adv Shadan Farasat: We have filed applications challenging the maintainability of the petition. My lords may also consider that before going into the question of...

SG: There is already an order of 8 May 2026. I thought it's not relevant and my friend would have read it. Generally, now the practise of reading earlier order is vanishing.

SG: It's already taken care of that when we start arguing the maintainability aspect will be taken care of.

Farasat: My lord may hear first my application on maintainability.

Farasat is representing Vijay Nair.

My argument is that the petition is not maintainable because it is filed by private counsel: Farasat.

Bench: There is an order of the previous bench which says everything will be heard together.

SG: The argument is that my learned friend who is a public prosecutor, his colleagues under him have signed and that is why the revision is not maintainable. He has given the authority. There are a number of judgements on this.

SG: Repeateadly, i have been insisting let them file a reply. There were several orders passed saying last opportunity.

SG says Sisodia, Arvind Kumar Singh, Kejriwal and Durgesh Pathak have not filed their reply yet.

Court is informed that there are three respondents (Sisodia, Kejriwal and Durgesh Pathak) who are still not represented.

Bench: We understand that the case has been received on transfer. The matter is already in the newspaper, so we assume that they are in knowledge that the matter is before this court now. We will not shy away from sending them a notice that the matter is now before this court and if they want to appear they can. Once they appear, we do not know if they are okay with the present allocation or not. We will ask the prosecution to inform them about the allocation.

Bench: Can we have it after lunch? We do not know, someone may be there for them after lunch.

SG: Experience says nobody would be there. That's the obvious way of delaying the hearing.

Bench: the ideal scenario would be when everybody is hear and everybody is heard.

SG: No one should be permitted to take the court proceedings for a joyride.