Back
Issues Fresh Notice in Excise Policy Case
The on directed the issuance of fresh notices to national convenor Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and leader Durgesh Pathak in connection with the ’s challenging their discharge along with 20 other accused in the alleged excise policy scam. Justice Manoj Jain, to whom the matter stands transferred, observed the persistent absence of representation for respondents 8, 18 and 19 and emphasised the necessity of ensuring every party participates in the proceedings.
This development marks another chapter in a high-profile criminal matter that has already witnessed multiple twists, including a detailed from the , rejection of , initiation of contempt proceedings and the subsequent reassignment of the
Background of the Excise Policy Litigation
The underlying case revolves around allegations that the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy of 2021-22 was manipulated to favour select liquor traders in return for kickbacks. The filed a chargesheet after investigation, prompting discharge applications from all accused. On the , in a judgment exceeding 1,100 paragraphs, discharged all 23 persons, including Kejriwal, Sisodia and leader K Kavitha. The court criticised the ’s investigation and held that the policy was the outcome of a consultative process with no overarching conspiracy established.
Aggrieved, the preferred a before the . Notice on that petition was issued on , with the court observing at a preliminary stage that certain findings of the appeared erroneous. , appearing for the , has consistently urged that the “cannot stand scrutiny of law” and that the matter involves serious allegations of a “scam in the capital of this nation.”
Transfer of the and Contempt Proceedings
The was originally listed before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak filed applications seeking her recusal on grounds of perceived bias, citing alleged associations and the appearance of the Solicitor General for the prosecution. After those applications were dismissed, the respondents communicated their intention to boycott proceedings before her, stating they would not appear either in person or through counsel.
Justice Sharma subsequently initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, Sisodia, Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh, leaders Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra, Durgesh Pathak and Devesh Vishwakarma. She alleged a “calculated campaign of vilification” through social media posts targeting both the judiciary and herself personally. The judge characterised the alleged campaign as an attempt at psychological coercion likely to undermine public confidence in judicial institutions.
Following the initiation of contempt proceedings, Justice Sharma recused herself from the and transferred it to another bench. On the same day a division bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja issued notices in the criminal contempt case, granting the alleged contemnors four weeks to file replies. That matter stands listed for . The indicated it may appoint an to assist in adjudicating the contempt allegations.
Proceedings Before Justice Jain on
When the came up before Justice Manoj Jain, the court noted that respondents 8, 18 and 19 remained unrepresented despite several prior listings. The Solicitor General informed the court that all respondents had been served after notice was issued on and that earlier orders had been passed with consent. He further submitted that multiple opportunities had already been granted for filing replies, yet four respondents had still not complied.
, appearing for one of the respondents, argued that applications questioning the should be heard first. He contended that the counsel filing the revision were private practitioners rather than Additional Public Prosecutors and therefore the petition deserved independent scrutiny on that ground.
Justice Jain orally observed that replies must be filed without prejudice to the maintainability objections. The court remarked that “the ideal scenario is where all parties are present and everyone is heard.” Addressing the Solicitor General, the bench directed that Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak be specifically intimated about the transfer so they could decide whether to appear. The matter was listed for at 2:30 p.m.
Procedural Fairness and Considerations
The court’s insistence on fresh notice reflects core principles of . When a matter is transferred midstream, especially following contentious and contempt proceedings, adequate intimation becomes essential to afford parties a meaningful opportunity to participate. Non-appearance, even if strategic, does not relieve the court of its obligation to ensure service.
The interplay between the and the parallel contempt proceedings raises interesting procedural questions. The Solicitor General urged that all connected matters be heard together for consistency. While the court has not yet ruled on that request, the direction to file replies indicates an inclination to keep the revision proceedings moving forward.
Arguments on Maintainability and Expeditious Hearing
Farasat’s argument that private counsel filed the instead of designated prosecutors touches upon an important technical issue that occasionally surfaces in high-stakes cases. Courts have previously examined whether such procedural irregularities affect the maintainability of criminal revisions. The will have to decide whether to adjudicate this objection at the threshold or to consider it along with merits.
Mehta’s emphasis on expeditious disposal underscores the public interest dimension of the case. Allegations of corruption involving a policy framed by a state government naturally attract intense scrutiny. At the same time, accused persons who have spent months or years in custody—Sisodia had been incarcerated for over 500 days before being granted bail—have a legitimate expectation that proceedings will conclude without undue delay.
Impact on Legal Practice and High-Profile Litigation
This litigation offers several lessons for practitioners handling politically sensitive matters. First, strategic non-appearance or boycott of proceedings must be weighed carefully against the risk that courts may interpret such conduct as an attempt to frustrate the process. Second, counsel should be prepared to address preliminary objections relating to maintainability even while reserving rights on merits. Third, when multiple connected proceedings—revision, contempt, discharge challenges—are pending, seeking directions for consolidated hearing can promote consistency and save judicial time.
The episode also highlights the delicate balance courts must maintain when dealing with criticism of judicial orders by political actors. While robust criticism is part of democratic discourse, courts retain the power to initiate contempt when publications cross the line into scandalising the institution. The ’s eventual adjudication of the contempt case will likely influence how lawyers and litigants navigate public commentary during ongoing proceedings.
Conclusion
By ordering fresh notice and fixing an early date, the has reaffirmed its commitment to procedural fairness even in a matter that has become intensely political. The next hearing on will reveal whether the absent respondents choose to participate or continue their stand. Whichever course they adopt, the court’s handling of the and the parallel contempt proceedings will be closely watched by the legal community for guidance on managing high-profile criminal revisions and allegations of judicial bias.
The outcome will also shape public perception of how swiftly and fairly the justice delivery system resolves cases involving elected representatives and serious allegations of corruption. For legal professionals, the proceedings serve as a reminder that obligations endure even when parties attempt to disengage from the process.
