Kejriwal Granted More Time by Delhi HC to Address CBI's Discharge Challenge
On Monday, the Delhi High Court allowed former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and 22 others until April 5 to submit their responses to the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) appeal against the trial court's decision to acquit them in the excise policy case. A panel led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma scheduled April 6 for the subsequent hearing of the CBI's appeal against the trial court's decision from February 27.
The respondents in this matter were notified, yet they opted not to attend on the specified date. On that date, an order was issued granting them time to submit their response, and they claim they require additional time to do so. The respondents assert that they have contested the court's order and have filed a writ petition. Regardless, until this court receives a stay order from the supreme court, the case will proceed according to the law. The interim order remains in effect. Schedule it for April 6," the court stated in its order.
The panel replied to appeals from Kejriwal's lawyer N Hariharan, Arun Ramachandran Pillai's representative Pramod Dubey, and Sarath Reddy's attorney Vikas Pahwa, who requested the court to grant at least four weeks to submit their responses.
Hariharan also mentioned that both a writ petition and a special leave petition (SLP) had been submitted to the Supreme Court. Specifically, the writ petition requested the case be reassigned to a different judge, while the SLP contested the high court's order from March 9.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI alongside Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, contested the request, asserting that the respondents should not be allowed more than a week to submit their responses. He argued that if they had already lodged a petition in the Supreme Court and were requesting a postponement on those grounds, they should first address the objections and have the case scheduled there.
The SG argued that if a filing has been made, the parties have the right to contest any issues they wish. However, if this is being used as a reason for postponement, they must ensure that the SLP is prepared, objections are addressed, and it is listed within the week. It is unacceptable to leave it unresolved and use that as a reason for delay. Some have developed a habit of making allegations and then avoiding resolution. Such behavior should not be supported, as these individuals have turned making allegations into a career.
He also argued that a response was not required in this situation, emphasizing the urgency of hearing the appeal because the order being contested was 'objectionable. 'He stated that a reply or rejoinder might not be needed in this case because the impugned order and the already requested record must be reviewed. The court might not allow more than a week. We are facing an urgent situation. This is a highly objectionable order.
On February 27, the trial court acquitted Kejriwal, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 others, determining that the CBI's evidence failed to establish even a basic case, much less a serious suspicion. In a 601-page ruling, special judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue also ordered a departmental investigation into the 'erring investigating officer' who brought charges against the accused without substantial evidence, stating that the officer misused his official position to carry out an unjust investigation.
The agency subsequently appealed to the high court, challenging the trial court's decision on the basis that the judgment was rendered by 'overlooking' the evidence the agency had compiled. They argued that the findings were 'fundamentally flawed' and emphasized that the agency had gathered numerous documents, interviewed witnesses, and collected emails and WhatsApp messages, asserting that their evidence was substantial and not baseless.
On March 9, the high court issued a notice regarding the agency's appeal, noting that the trial court's observations appeared to be 'prima facie incorrect.' The court had postponed until March 16 the trial court's directive for departmental action against the CBI's investigating officer and the comments made about him, stating that these remarks were "prima facie foundationally misconceived, especially when made at the stage of charge itself." Additionally, the judge had asked the trial court to delay the Enforcement Directorate's money laundering case, which originated from the CBI case, and to wait for the result of the CBI's appeal against the February 27 decision.
On March 11, Kejriwal and others requested Delhi High Court's Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya to reassign the CBI's appeal to a different bench, away from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's current bench. This request was rejected through a communication from the high court's registrar general, Arun Bhardwaj, on March 13.
The communication from March 13 indicated that the chief justice noted the CBI petition was already allocated to Justice Sharma's bench as per the existing roster, and mentioned that any decision regarding recusal would need to be made by the judge in question.
