Delhi High Court rejects Vijay Nair's plea seeking recall of 5 month old order in excise policy case

The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected a plea filed by former AAP communications in-charge Vijay Nair seeking recall of the court's May 2026 order in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) plea against discharge of all accused in the excise policy case.

In that May 8 order under challenge, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had recorded that Nair and another respondent had filed applications challenging the maintainability of the case.

It had further noted Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's submission that arguments on these applications may be heard at the time of addressing arguments on the main petition.

It had also recorded that the "counsels for the respondents have no objection to the same". 

However, in an application moved in the case, Nair said that no such statement was made.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appeared for him and said that the "application was moved with all responsibility and the consent was actually not given".

Farasat added that CBI was now relying on this order to oppose his request before the roster bench to decide the maintainability of the case before hearing the main petition.

In a detailed order, Justice Sharma today rejected the plea, observing that she had dictated the order in open court, signed it and then uploaded it.

"The judicial record, which records the proceedings and submissions made before the Court, cannot be displaced merely on the basis of a subsequent assertion to the contrary. No objection was raised by the learned counsel at the time the order was dictated in their presence. The order was thereafter uploaded, and five months have elapsed since it was uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, during which period no such application was moved, nor was any prayer made before the concerned Roster Bench seeking correction of the order or requesting that the matter be placed before this Court," the Court said.

The Court also rejected Farasat's submission that the Court (Justice Sharma) may not recall what had transpired on the date of hearing.

"This Court, at the cost of repetition, observes that the submissions in question were recorded and noted on the record by this Court in the presence of the learned counsel for the applicant himself. The orders of the Court record what transpires in Court and what is dictated in the order sheet before it is uploaded. The submissions made by the learned senior counsel, therefore, do not disclose any ground for modifying the said order on the basis that this Court had incorrectly recorded his submissions," Justice Sharma said.

Notably, Justice Sharma is no longer hearing the excise policy case as she had transferred it to another bench, after initiating criminal contempt proceedings against several AAP leaders for their alleged targeting of her.

However, the application came to be listed before her since the May order was passed by her.

[Read Order]