Justice Manoj Jain noted that three ‘vakalatnama’ appeared to have been filed on behalf of the three unrepresented AAP leaders, who had earlier boycotted the hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, and deferred further hearing to await the presence of the counsel, considering that lawyers were abstaining from work in the high court today.
A ‘vakalatnama’ is an authorisation letter submitted by an advocate to represent a party in court.
Also Read: SC grants bail to Chhattisgarh’s former excise commissioner in two liquor policy cases
“If they have filed vakalatnama, on the next date we can see which date can be given and a schedule can be drawn… It seems some vakalatnama has been filed,” the judge observed, as he listed the case for hearing on July 16.
Even as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, urged that the matter be listed on Wednesday for fixing the hearing schedule before the summer vacation, Justice Manoj said the court was giving priority to matters concerning life and liberty.
The judge also said that Wednesday was a declared holiday for the high court on the occasion of Eid al-Adha.The excise policy case came before Justice Jain after Justice Sharma released it from her board earlier this month after initiating contempt action against Kejriwal, Sisodia, Pathak and others for their alleged “villifying” social media posts against her.
When the matter was listed before Justice Jain on May 19, he had asked the CBI to inform the AAP leaders about the change of bench.
On February 27, the trial court discharged former Delhi chief minister Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case, ruling that it was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
The CBI moved the High Court and, on March 9, Justice Sharma’s bench stayed the trial court’s recommendation on the initiation of departmental action against the CBI’s investigating officer in the liquor policy case.
While issuing notice to all 23 accused on CBI’s plea against their discharge, Justice Sharma said certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appeared erroneous and needed consideration.
Subsequently, Kejriwal, Sisodia, Pathak and some other respondents sought Justice Swarana’s recusal in the case on an apprehension of bias and conflict of interest.
Also Read: SC notice to Chhattisgarh govt on bail plea of businessman in manpower commission ‘scam’
After Justice Sharma dismissed their applications seeking her recusal in the case on April 20, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak wrote to Justice Sharma, stating they would not appear before her personally or through a lawyer and would follow “Mahatma Gandhi‘s path of Satyagraha”.
On May 14, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, however, initiated criminal contempt proceedings against them and other AAP leaders for their “vilifying” social media posts against her and said that the matter would be sent to another bench.
