New Delhi [India], May 19 : The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to inform Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak about the transfer of the excise policy case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to Justice Manoj Jain.
The Court remarked that since the matter was already in the media, it assumed that the concerned parties were aware that the case had now been transferred to the present Bench. The Court further observed that once Kejriwal and the other respondents appeared before it, it would become clear whether they were satisfied with the present allocation of the matter.
The observations were made while hearing the CBI's revision petition challenging the trial court's February 27 order discharging Kejriwal and other accused in the Delhi excise policy case.
At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the CBI. The Bench enquired which respondents were represented and noted that accused no. 8 Sisodia, accused no. 18 Kejriwal and accused no. 19 Durgesh Pathak were not represented before the Court during the hearing.
The Solicitor General informed the Court that an affidavit had already been filed stating that notices issued on March 9 had been served upon all parties. He submitted that the respondents had earlier appeared in the proceedings and had also filed applications. The Court responded, "We understand that they are aware."
During the hearing, Mehta submitted that the case involved "serious allegations and scientific investigation" and stated that a chargesheet had already been filed after detailed probe. He argued that at the stage of framing of charge, all accused had opposed the prosecution case and contended that the discharge order passed by the trial court "cannot stand any judicial scrutiny."
Referring to earlier orders dated April 20 and April 29, the Solicitor General submitted that the matter pertained to "a scam in the capital of the nation" and therefore deserved expeditious consideration.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for Vijay Nair, sought a prior hearing on his application challenging the maintainability of the CBI's revision petition. Farasat argued that the petition was not maintainable as it had allegedly been filed through private counsel.
However, the Bench observed that the previous Bench had already passed an order directing that all issues, including maintainability, would be heard together along with the main matter.
Responding to the objection, the Solicitor General argued that the challenge related to the authority of the public prosecutor and signatures on the petition and submitted that several judgments already covered the issue. He also pointed out that repeated opportunities had been granted to certain respondents to file replies.
The Court was informed that Sisodia, Kejriwal, Arvind Kumar Singh and Durgesh Pathak had still not filed their replies in the matter.
Taking note of the reassignment of the case, the Court observed that while it presumed the parties were already aware of the transfer due to extensive media reporting, formal intimation should nevertheless be given to them regarding the present allocation.
"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," the Bench observed.
The Court further remarked that "the ideal scenario would be when everybody is here, and everybody is heard." It added that after the appearance of all parties, the Court would consider whether they had any objection to the present roster allocation and thereafter fix a schedule for hearing.
During the proceedings, the Solicitor General also submitted that "no one should be permitted to take the court proceedings for a joyride."
The matter has now been directed to be listed on May 25.
Meanwhile, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja on Tuesday issued criminal contempt notices to Kejriwal, Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and others over alleged remarks against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in connection with the excise policy case.
The contempt proceedings arise out of Justice Sharma's recent order alleging a "calculated campaign" to scandalise the judiciary through social media posts, edited videos and public statements.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor