Delhi High Court Steps In to Appoint Amicus Curiae for Kejriwal in Liquor Policy Case

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday said it will appoint senior lawyers as amicus curiae to represent Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, including Arvind Kejriwal, in the excise policy case after they refused to participate in the proceedings. The decision came after Kejriwal, along with Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak, boycotted the hearing before the court.

The matter was heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who declined to recuse herself despite requests from the accused citing concerns over potential bias. Following their absence, the court observed that the proceedings could not continue without representation and indicated that it would appoint up to three senior advocates as amicus curiae to ensure the case moves forward. The hearing has been deferred to May 8.

The development is part of an ongoing legal battle over the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy, with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging a trial court order that had discharged all accused, including Kejriwal and Sisodia. Representing the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought clarity on whether the court would appoint legal representation for the absent leaders, to which the bench responded affirmatively.

Also Read: ECI Reports Rs 510 Crore Seizure Of Cash, Liquor And Freebies In Bengal Polls

Earlier, on February 27, a trial court had discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 21 others, stating that the case failed to meet the threshold required for prosecution and could not withstand judicial scrutiny. However, the High Court later took note of what it described as potentially “erroneous” findings at the stage of framing of charges and issued notices to all accused while staying certain observations made against the investigating officer.

The AAP leaders had moved an application seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal, alleging a conflict of interest on the grounds that her family members are empanelled lawyers for the central government and receive work through the Solicitor General. Rejecting the plea on April 20, the judge stated that recusal cannot be granted based on unsubstantiated apprehensions and that judicial independence must be preserved.

In response to the court’s refusal, the leaders wrote to the bench declaring that they would not appear either personally or through counsel, invoking Mahatma Gandhi’s principle of Satyagraha. With the appointment of amicus curiae, the court has now taken steps to ensure that the proceedings continue despite the boycott, as it prepares to resume hearings later this week.

Also Read: Tejashwi Yadav Alleges Rs 40,000 Crore Illegal Liquor Economy in Bihar