The Delhi High Court on Tuesday said it will appoint three senior lawyers as amicus curiae to represent AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, along with party colleague Durgesh Pathak, after they boycotted proceedings in the liquor policy case.
Hearing the CBI's plea challenging the discharge of the accused, the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma indicated it would step in to ensure representation. An amicus curiae is an experienced lawyer who is not a party to a case but is appointed or allowed by the court to assist with legal arguments, clarify issues, or ensure fair proceedings.
"I will appoint a senior in this case as amicus. Friday I’ll pass an order regarding the amicus, and then we will hear the case," Justice Sharma added, without commenting on the leaders' decision to boycott the hearing.
The development came after the AAP leaders stayed away from proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. Their boycott followed the judge’s April 20 order dismissing their applications seeking her recusal.
Last week, Kejriwal and Sisodia wrote to Justice Sharma saying they would not appear before her "personally or through a lawyer" and would follow "Mahatma Gandhi’s path of Satyagraha".
On February 27, a trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case being probed by the CBI, ruling that the prosecution’s case was "wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny" and stood discredited.
On March 9, Justice Sharma’s bench paused the trial court’s recommendation to initiate departmental action against the CBI’s investigating officer. While issuing notice on the CBI’s appeal against the discharge, the High Court said certain findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges "prima facie appeared erroneous" and warranted consideration.
Kejriwal, Sisodia and other respondents had subsequently sought the judge’s recusal, alleging conflict of interest and apprehension of bias. They argued that the judge’s children are empanelled central government lawyers who receive work through the solicitor general, who appears for the CBI in the case.
Rejecting the plea on April 20, Justice Sharma said judges cannot recuse themselves to satisfy a litigant’s "unfounded apprehension of bias".
