Excise Policy Case: Delhi High Court To Appoint Amicus Curiae For Kejriwal, Sisodia In CBI Plea On May 11

Delhi High Court hearing in CBI plea against discharge of AAP leaders in excise policy case
X

Delhi High Court deferred hearing in the excise policy case and said amici would be appointed for Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak.

The Delhi High Court deferred hearing on the CBI’s plea challenging the discharge of accused in the excise policy case and said it would appoint senior advocates as amici curiae for Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak

The Delhi High Court on Friday deferred hearing in the CBI’s plea challenging the discharge of all accused in the alleged excise policy case, while indicating that it would appoint Senior Advocates as amicus curiae to represent AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak, who continue to remain unrepresented in the proceedings.

The matter came up before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

At the outset, the Court noted that objections had been raised regarding the maintainability of the CBI’s petition challenging the discharge order. Vijay Nair and Arvind Kumar Singh say that the plea is not maintainable.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI through video conferencing, sought to commence arguments on maintainability first. He also informed the bench that the reply has already been filed in the maintainability plea. “I would like to start. It is my petition. I would like to argue on how it is maintainable. Later, they can argue how it is not maintainable,” Mehta submitted before the Court.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appeared on behalf of one of the respondents opposing the maintainability of the CBI’s plea.

During the hearing, Justice Sharma observed that consent from the proposed senior advocates was still awaited before formally appointing them as amici curiae for the three absent respondents: Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak.

“I am awaiting consent of the Senior Advocates for them to be appointed as amicus, for the three non-representing respondents,” the Court stated.

The bench further said that the amici would now be appointed on Monday, after which arguments on maintainability would begin on Tuesday.

Accordingly, the matter was relisted for hearing on Monday, i.e. May 11 at 2:30 PM.

On the last hearing, the Court had indicated that it will appoint amicus curiae to represent AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak. “I will appoint three Senior Advocates as amicus for the respondents who are not present,” the Court observed, adding that the appointments will be made on May 8, 2026.

The case arises out of the Delhi excise policy controversy, where both the CBI and ED have initiated proceedings. The High Court is presently examining the CBI’s challenge to a trial court order discharging the accused, alongside the ED’s plea to remove certain observations made against it.

On April 29, the Court had deferred hearing after noting that the complete trial court record had not yet been received. It had also recorded that some respondents had already filed their replies and granted a final opportunity to the remaining parties to do so by May 2.

What has happened so far in the Delhi Excise policy case:

It is to be noted that Senior AAP leader Manish Sisodia had written to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court, stating that he will not participate in further hearings in the matter, citing concerns over the “appearance of impartial justice” and invoking principles of conscience and Satyagraha. Sisodia’s letter follows a similar communication by Arvind Kejriwal a day earlier. Referring to it, Sisodia stated, “I have carefully considered the substance of that letter… I find myself in respectful agreement with the stand taken by him, which is based on Mahatma Gandhi's teachings on Satyagraha.”

Manish Sisodia's recusal case involves a pending criminal revision petition before the Delhi High Court, where he had sought the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma citing apprehensions of bias. In the same case, Arvind Kejriwal was permitted to argue the recusal plea in person and he had made detailed submissions before the Court.

The High Court, however, rejected the recusal plea, holding that the grounds raised did not justify withdrawal of the judge and cautioning against allegations that could undermine the institution’s integrity if not substantiated.

Following the hearing, videos of Kejriwal’s courtroom arguments surfaced and were widely circulated on social media, triggering a separate controversy over alleged unauthorised recording and dissemination of court proceedings. The same is under consideration before the High Court. It is in this backdrop that after Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak have written to the Court expressing their decision to abstain from further participation in the matter.

Case Title: CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Hearing Date: May 8, 2026

Tags

Next Story