Delhi High Court Judge Swarana Kanta Sharma on Tuesday said she would appoint three senior lawyers as amicus curiae on Friday, following the decision of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Deputy CM Manish Sisodia and AAP leader Durgesh Pathak to boycott the hearing of a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) appeal against their discharge in a tax policy case.
An amicus curiae is certainly an attorney or expert appointed by the court to assist it in a case. They do not represent any party but provide independent and impartial input on legal or factual issues to assist the court in reaching a fair decision.
This was after the court noted that neither Kejriwal, Sisodia nor Pathak had chosen to appear.
Justice Sharma said she would start hearing the CBI’s arguments on merits after appointing an amicus on Friday.
Read also | ‘Hope to break justice’: Kejriwal writes to Justice Sharma in Delhi, refuses to appear in court
“I will appoint one of the senior officials in this case as amicus and therefore I think it will be appropriate for me to hear the CBI’s argument once I appoint the amicus. Now we will list it on Friday. On Friday, I will pass an order regarding the amicus and then I will start hearing. I will appoint 3 senior officials in this case,” the judge said.
Timeline of Kejriwal case
On February 27, the court released Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others, 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 administrative action against a CBI officer, terming the statements as prima facie wrong, and adjourned the ED’s proceedings.
Kejriwal sought to have the case transferred to another judge on March 11, 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.
Kejriwal and other AAP leaders refused to come to listen
However, a week after the judgment on April 20, when the court began hearing the CBI’s arguments on the merits, Kejriwal wrote a letter to Justice Sharma saying he would boycott the proceedings. In his letter, the AAP coordinator stated 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. Subsequently, Manish Sisodia and after him Durgesh Pathak also wrote similar letters conveying the same decision.
Despite the letters, the judge on Wednesday gave Kejriwal, Sisodia, Durgesh and four others the last chance to file their replies.
The matter will now be heard on Friday.
It is certain that after the letters, HT had previously spoken to legal experts to understand the options available to the court in light of the letters.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh and advocate Kanhaiya Singhal said the option before the court was to appoint an amicus. Singh said that the court is not incapable of hearing the case in this case and the court can exercise its option by appointing a senior advocate or any other advocate as amicus curiae to assist the court in the legal issues as well as facts related to the case. He added that the amicus curiae does not represent them but only assists the court and acts as a neutral player as his job is to assist the court.
He further explained that the amicus curiae would primarily assist the court on questions of law, such as whether relief was appropriate at this stage, whether inconsistencies in the statements could be taken into account, and whether the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard would apply at the charging stage if the court so desired.
