Even as the AAP leaders boycotted the hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, the judge granted them one final opportunity to file their replies.
After Justice Sharma dismissed their applications seeking her recusal in the case on April 20, Kejriwal and Sisodia wrote a letter to Justice Sharma earlier this week, stating they would not appear before her personally or through a lawyer and would follow “Mahatma Gandhi’s path of Satyagraha”.
Former AAP MLA Durgesh Pathak also wrote a similar letter to the judge on Wednesday.
During the hearing, Justice Sharma said the court was yet to receive the entire trial court record, including the last few orders passed by the trial court, and deferred hearing on the CBI’s petition until May 4.
“We will just call for the record and start hearing from Monday,” Justice Sharma said, directing that the record be summoned by tomorrow.
The court also noted that while several parties had filed their respective replies, some of the discharged accused persons were yet to do the same.”(The court will) give them one more last and final opportunity to file reply. They will file by Saturday,” the court said.
The court also issued notice to the CBI on an application by one of the discharged accused seeking vacation of the interim stay order passed by the court on April 9.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for CBI, said he would file a reply to the application.
The court also listed for May 4 a petition by the Enforcement Directorate seeking to expunge certain “unwarranted” remarks against it in the trial court’s decision.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case, as it ruled that the case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
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 and other respondents moved an application seeking recusal of the judge, alleging conflict of interest and an apprehension of bias.
They claimed that the judge’s children are empanelled central government lawyers who receive work through solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appears for the CBI in the excise case.
On April 20, Justice Sharma junked the recusal plea, saying that judges cannot recuse themselves to satisfy a litigant’s unfounded apprehension of bias.
Pathak, Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai had also sought her recusal.