Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia using "childish" ways to delay Excise Policy case: CBI to Delhi HC

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Monday told the Delhi High Court that Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak were using "childish" methods to delay the proceedings in the excise policy case.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta appeared for the CBI and made the submission before Justice Manoj Jain after Kejriwal and others' lawyers sought four weeks' time to file their replies to CBI's challenge to their discharge in the case.

SG Mehta said that seeking four weeks for filing responses was not fair in view of the fact that the Court had on July 16 order granted Kejriwal, Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak one final opportunity to file their replies

"They are saying they have got a great order. I am saying it is not worth the paper it is written on... Four weeks is not a fair request. My lord knows it is not fair. This is a childish way to get the matter adjourned," SG submitted.

However, Senior Advocate N Hariharan, appearing for Kejriwal, said that the CBI's written submissions ran into 103 pages and many additional grounds were raised in it.

Senior Advocate Rebecca John appeared for Sisodia and stated that grounds raised by the CBI in its revision plea were generic and its scope was extended subsequently.

After hearing the submissions briefly, Justice Jain granted Kejriwal and others one last chance to file their replies in four weeks.

He added that arguments in the case will be heard on October 5 and October 6, and that no further adjournments will be granted.

"We will have it on October 5 and October 6. I am making it clear that we will start hearing arguments from the prosecution," the Bench underscored.

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary appeared for Durgesh Pathak and said they had filed applications raising preliminary objections to the maintainability of CBI's case and that the maintainability issue should be decided before the Court hears arguments on the merits of the case.

However, the Court said that it will not proceed in the case in a "piecemeal" manner but will decide the case in its entirety.

"I am saying this will not be in piecemeal. Arguments will be heard in one go," the Court said.

A trial court had on February 27 this year discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused from the case. The CBI challenged the order and the same initially came up before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

On March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice in the matter and stayed the trial court direction for departmental proceedings against the CBI officer who investigated the case. Justice Sharma also gave a prima facie finding that some of the observations made by the trial court in its order were erroneous. She further directed the trial court to defer the PMLA proceedings, which were based on the CBI's case.

Kejriwal and other accused - Sisodia, Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai and Chanpreet Singh Rayat - subsequently filed applications for Justice Sharma's recusal.

They alleged conflict on interest on her part in hearing the case since her children are lawyers on Central government lawyers' panel. They also alleged ideological bias on her part, citing her attendance at events hosted by Adhivakta Parishad, the lawyers wing of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. These arguments were initially rejected by Justice Sharma, who decided that she would continue hearing the matter.

Subsequently, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak decided to boycott the proceedings before Justice Sharma. Later, Justice Sharma decided to initiate contempt of court proceedings against Kejriwal and others for their allegations against her. In view of the same, she also decided that she will not hear the Excise Policy case.

Notably, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak recently filed applications seeking dismissal of the CBI's plea. They argued that the petition was filed within 4 hours of the trial court judgment with "unprecedented haste" and in the "most unserious manner".

According to their applications, the revision petition does not point out any specific illegality/discrepancies in the trial court judgement.

"That the present omnibus CBI petition failed to even plead- against each accused person specifically - as to how the discharge order is an order passed without any evidence or that material evidence is ignored qua the specific accused or which finding -in which para- for which accused- amounts to judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. That CBI has also failed to produce any evidence, material or documents with the present Revision Petition to show the perversity in the order of discharge," Sisodia said in his application.

Further, it has been stated that due to filing of such "bare-shell, omnibus and non-specific petition", prejudice is being caused to the respondents as they are unable to discern the case they have to meet.