NEW DELHI: AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia have filed applications before the Delhi High Court seeking rejection of the CBI appeal against their discharge in the excise policy case. In their application, the politicians have raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the CBI’s case, alleging that the revision plea was filed within four hours of the trial court judgment with “unprecedented haste” and in the “most unserious manner”. They have claimed that the CBI’s revision petition does not point out any specific illegality or discrepancies in the trial court judgment.
“That the present omnibus CBI petition failed to even plead against each accused person specifically as to how the discharge order is an order passed without any evidence or that material evidence is ignored qua the specific accused, or which finding, in which para, for which accused, amounts to judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely,” their application claimed.
It claimed that the CBI has also failed to produce any evidence, material or documents, with the present revision petition to show the perversity in the order of discharge. The applications have been moved in the revision plea filed by the CBI against the order passed by the trial court on February 27, 2026.
The application has further claimed that due to filing of “such bare-shell, omnibus and non-specific petition”, prejudice is being caused to the respondents as they are unable to discern the case they have to meet. The applications are likely to come up for hearing before Justice Manoj Jain on August 18. A trial court on February 27 discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused from the case.
Does reputation flow generationally: HC
The Delhi High Court on Thursday questioned whether reputation attached to a family name could flow down generations while hearing a lawsuit over “misleading” social media content about Aaradhya Bachchan, daughter of actors Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai. Justice Anup J Bhambhani also asked whether fake news, even if “egregiously despicable”, could amount to violation of intellectual property rights. The matter will next be heard in September.