The prominent leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), including Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Durgesh Pathak, have opted to actively engage in the ongoing excise policy case proceedings under the purview of Justice Manoj Jain of the Delhi High Court. Initially, Kejriwal and his associates had intended to boycott the case when it was under the jurisdiction of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. However, Justice Sharma stepped away from the case on May 14 and initiated contempt proceedings against Kejriwal and other AAP members for allegedly defamatory comments directed at her.
With Justice Sharma recusing herself, the case was subsequently reassigned to Justice Manoj Jain. At the commencement of the hearing, Justice Jain acknowledged the submission of vakalatnamas on behalf of Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak. “They have filed vakalatnamas, so on the next date of hearing, we will see and draw a schedule for the hearing,” stated Justice Jain, indicating that all concerned parties, including Kejriwal and others, would be heard at the subsequent session. The hearing has been scheduled for July 16, at which point the court will establish a timeline for the proceedings.
This legal battle traces back to a trial court decision on February 27, which exonerated Kejriwal and 22 others involved in the case. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) contested this ruling, leading to its initial examination by Justice Sharma. On March 9, Justice Sharma issued a notice and imposed a stay on the trial court’s direction for departmental proceedings against the CBI officer responsible for the investigation. She also provided a preliminary assessment suggesting that the trial court’s observations contained errors. Additionally, Justice Sharma directed a postponement of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) proceedings, which are inherently linked to the CBI’s case.
Kejriwal, alongside co-accused Sisodia, Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai, and Chanpreet Singh Rayat, subsequently sought Justice Sharma’s recusal, citing potential conflicts of interest due to her children’s legal affiliations with the Central government and her alleged ideological bias, as demonstrated by her participation in events sponsored by the Adhivakta Parishad, affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. These claims were initially dismissed by Justice Sharma, who intended to continue presiding over the matter.
However, the AAP leaders chose to abstain from the hearings under Justice Sharma, prompting her to initiate contempt proceedings against them for their allegations. As a result, Justice Sharma decided to withdraw from overseeing the excise policy case altogether, leading to its reassignment to Justice Manoj Jain.
