‘In interest of justice’: HC gives final chance to AAP leaders to reply to CBI plea
Delhi High Court gives AAP leaders a final opportunity to respond to the CBI’s revision petition in the excise policy case, keeping the criminal revision process alive while the broader litigation continues.
- The Delhi High Court gave Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak a final two-week opportunity to reply to the Central Bureau of Investigation revision petition.
- The Delhi High Court fixed August 17 for arguments on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation.
- High Court lawyers abstained from work to protest a proposal to raise the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi district courts, which contributed to the hearing delay.
- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had earlier released the excise policy matter from her board and initiated contempt action over alleged defamatory or villifying social media posts.
The Delhi High Court has given Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak a final two-week opportunity to file replies to the Central Bureau of Investigation revision petition in the Delhi excise policy case. The court also fixed August 17 for arguments on behalf of the CBI, making the order relevant for criminal procedure and judicial case management.
The case had already seen multiple adjournments. The hearing was deferred because none of the respondents appeared, following a work abstention by High Court lawyers who were protesting a proposal to raise the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi district courts. The lawyers later resumed work.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the three leaders had already been given several chances and that the matter was being delayed unduly. The judge noted that the respondents would still be allowed to file their reply, but ordered one last and final opportunity within two weeks.
The order is useful for GS2 because it links criminal procedure, judicial discretion, and accountability in a high-profile corruption-related case. It also helps revise the difference between discharge orders, revision petitions, and the role of the High Court in supervisory criminal jurisdiction.
Related dispatches
