Delhi High Court Judge Swarana Kanta Sharma on Tuesday said she would appoint three senior lawyers as amicus curiae on Friday to represent former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former CM Manish Sisodia and AAP leader Durgesh Pathak in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) appeal against their discharge in the tax policy case, following the trio’s decision to boycott the proceedings.
An amicus curiae is an attorney or expert appointed by the court to assist it in a case.
This was after the court noted that Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak had chosen not to appear.
“Three (Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak) have not appeared? I will appoint one of their seniors in this case as amicus for 8 (Sisodia), 18 (Kejriwal) and 19 (Pathak). I will appoint them and therefore I think it will be appropriate to hear the CBI’s argument once I appoint an amicus. Now we will list the case on Friday,” the judge said.
On February 27, the court released Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the case, holding that the CBI materials did not even reveal a prima facie case, prompting the agency to challenge the order in the Supreme Court.
On March 9, Justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s directions for taking administrative action against a CBI officer, terming the statements as prima facie wrong, and adjourned the ED’s proceedings.
On March 11, Kejriwal requested that the case be transferred to another judge, but the request was denied on March 13. He and Sisodia and four others then filed an application with the judge asking her to recuse herself. On April 20, the judge denied the requests, saying there was “no clear reason” to step aside, and warning that stepping aside due to perceived bias would set a troubling precedent.
However, a week after the April 20 judgment, when the court began hearing the CBI’s arguments on the merits, Kejriwal wrote a letter to Justice Sharma saying that neither he nor his counsel would appear in the matter.
In his letter, the AAP chief said that after his recusal request was rejected, he carefully considered his options.
Stating that his “well-founded concerns” remained unresolved, he said the ruling left him with the impression that his legitimate concerns had been seen as a personal attack on the judge and an “assault” on the institution itself. Following this, Manish Sisodia and then Durgesh Pathak also wrote similar letters to the judge.
Despite the letters, Justice Kejriwal gave Sisodia, Durgesh and four others the last opportunity to file their replies.
The matter will now be heard on Friday.
HT had previously reported on the possibility of the court appointing an amicus, based on conversations with legal experts. The amicus curiae certainly does not represent the accused but assists the court with the legal issues as well as the facts of the case.
