NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday granted time to former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and 21 others to respond to the CBI's petition challenging their discharge in the liquor policy case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma listed the CBI's petition assailing the trial court's decision for hearing on April 6.
The judge noted that Kejriwal and the other accused persons did not appear on the first day of the hearing, when they were asked to file their replies, and are now seeking more time to do so.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the agency, said the trial court's "perverse" order "cannot remain on record even for a second more than necessary" and that Kejriwal and others should not be given more than a week's time to file their response.
Reply is not necessary when the entire record of the trial court was available, he said.
Senior counsel for the AAP leader, senior advocate N Hariharan, informed the court that they have already approached the Supreme Court challenging the matter.
"I have not received any stay yet.. till the court gets an order staying the proceedings, the case has to proceed," the court observed.
Mehta asserted that although Kejriwal has the right to file an appeal, it must be ensured that the plea is listed in the Supreme Court this week if an adjournment was being sought on this ground, and he "can't keep it pending" in the top court's registry.
"There has been a pattern. Make allegations and run away. Such litigants can't be encouraged.. career (has been made) out of allegations," he said.
Hariharan said, "He was not in-charge" of the Supreme Court's registry and at least four weeks' time should be given for filing the reply.
"It is already three weeks (from today). I will take it up on April 6," the court observed.
The senior lawyers appearing for the accused persons said there was no urgency, and they should be given a reasonable time to file their replies.
The lawyers asserted that no prejudice would be caused to the CBI if more time was granted to them to file their replies.
Mehta said the order was causing "prejudice to the system".
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others, pulling up the CBI by saying its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
The trial court ruled that the alleged conspiracy was nothing more than a speculative construct resting on conjecture and surmise, devoid of any admissible evidence, and therefore, to compel the accused to face the rigours of a full-fledged criminal trial in the stark absence of any legally admissible material did not serve the ends of justice.
Kejriwal and Sisodia have moved the Supreme Court in the matter, after the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court D K Upadhyaya rejected their request to transfer the CBI's plea against their discharge from Justice Sharma to another judge. An appeal has also been filed challenging the order passed by the court on March 9.
On March 9, the court issued notice on the CBI's petition and stayed the trial court's recommendation on initiation of departmental action against the agency's investigating officer in the liquor policy case.
Justice Sharma said certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appear erroneous and need consideration.
Justice Sharma also asked the trial court to adjourn the connected money laundering case probed by the Enforcement Directorate to a later date and await the outcome of CBI's petition.
The CBI has earlier argued that the trial court order discharging Kejriwal and Sisodia was perverse and "turned the criminal law on its head".
Asserting that the trial court passed an order of acquittal in favour of Kejriwal, Sisodia and others without a trial, SG Mehta has on March 9 contented that meticulous evidence was collected by the agency to show conspiracy and bribery for a manipulated liquor policy, which "cannot be brushed away".
Although there was enough evidence against Kejriwal, Sisodia and other accused for framing charges, the discharge order relied on the lack of "independent corroboration" for approver statements when such corroboration was not required at the stage of framing charges, he further said.