New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Friday said it is awaiting consent of senior lawyers willing to represent Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) functionaries Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak in a revision plea filed by CBI against their discharge in the liquor policy case.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma deferred the hearing till May 11, saying the court expects to pass necessary orders on the appointment of amici curiae. “There are three persons who are not represented. I am awaiting the consent of some who will be representing them. I will appoint (them) on Monday… Arguments will begin on Tuesday,” said Justice Sharma.The situation arose after Kejriwal and other AAP functionaries decided to boycott the hearing before the judge as she rejected their plea seeking her recusal from the case. They claimed a conflict of interest and an apprehension of bias.On May 5, the high court had noted that no one appeared for these politicians in the proceedings and closed their right to file their replies. It, however, said it would pass an order appointing three senior lawyers as amici curiae to represent them.During the proceedings on Friday, HC also took note of the fact that Vijay Nair and Arvind Kumar Singh, two of the discharged accused, have filed applications challenging the maintainability of CBI’s petition.Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the agency, said it has filed its response to the applications, and he will address the issue when he begins his submissions.On April 20, Justice Sharma dismissed the applications of Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak seeking her recusal in the case, saying that judges cannot recuse themselves to satisfy a litigant’s unfounded apprehension of bias.After that, the trio wrote a letter to her saying they would not appear before her personally or through a lawyer, and would follow “Mahatma Gandhi’s path of satyagraha”.HC had earlier stayed a trial court’s recommendation on initiation of departmental action against CBI’s investigating officer in the liquor policy case. While issuing notice to all 23 accused on CBI’s plea against their discharge, HC also said certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appeared erroneous and needed consideration.
