New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted a final opportunity to former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Durgesh Pathak to submit their responses regarding a revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The central probe agency has moved the high court to contest a February trial court judgment that discharged all 23 accused persons in the high-profile Delhi excise policy corruption case.
Presiding over the hearing, Justice Manoj Jain observed that no legal counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents due to an ongoing work abstention by high court advocates. The bench noted that among all the individuals named in the matter, only these three political leaders had failed to place their replies on record despite multiple previous opportunities. Emphasizing the need to prevent further procedural delays, the High Court granted a final two-week window for the leaders to file their responses and listed the matter for extensive arguments on August 17 and August 18. The court also extended the operational interim protection order until the next scheduled date of proceedings.
Representing the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta alongside Additional Solicitor General DP Singh strongly urged the bench to prepone the hearing to the final week of July, arguing that the gravity of the case required immediate judicial consideration. Justice Jain explained that scheduling an earlier date remained difficult due to a heavy backlog of pending MP/MLA trials on the current roster. However, the bench assured the state law officers that it would re-evaluate the request for an expedited hearing if the court’s calendar permitted a vacancy.
The legal battle escalated after the case was reassigned to the current bench. The high court had previously instructed the CBI to formally serve transfer intimations to Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak to ensure their mandatory appearance. The CBI maintains that the trial court’s absolute discharge order is legally flawed, arguing that substantial material evidence exists on record to establish a prima facie case and initiate a full criminal trial against the political functionaries.
