New Delhi, Oct 9 The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to recall its order which stated that it would hear arguments on CBI's petition against the discharge of AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others in the excise policy case along with applications challenging its maintainability.
Former AAP communication in-charge Vijay Nair contended that in the order passed on May 8, the court wrongly recorded that the respondents had "conceded" to the arguments on maintainability being heard at the time of hearing of the CBI's revision petition itself.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed Nair's application and said there were no grounds to modify her order that was passed five months ago.
The judge stated that the matter has since been taken up by the court's different benches on several occasions without any such objections.
"It is crucial to note that, after 08.05.2026, the matter had been taken up by the concerned Roster Bench on 19.05.2026, 25.05.2026, 16.07.2026, 17.08.2026, 05.10.2026 and 06.10.2026, when no such objection had been raised, nor had any application been filed seeking modification or correction of the order," the order said.
"The orders of the Court record what transpires in Court and what is dictated in the order sheet before it is uploaded. The submissions made by the learned senior counsel, therefore, do not disclose any ground for modifying the said order on the basis that this Court had incorrectly recorded his submissions. The present application i.e. CRL.M.A. 31953/2026, being unmerited, is accordingly dismissed," the court concluded.
The CBI opposed the application, stating that it was filed at a belated stage as a delaying tactic.
Nair has challenged the maintainability of CBI's petition on the grounds that the advocates who instituted it were neither Public Prosecutors appointed under Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, nor advocates holding a Vakalatnama executed on behalf of the agency.
He asserted that since it is a "preliminary issue," it ought to be decided before the challenge to the discharge order is considered on merits.
On February 27, the trial court discharged former Delhi chief minister Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case, ruling that it was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
In its revision petition, the CBI has said that the discharge order was patently illegal, perverse and suffered from errors apparent on the face.
The petition has contended that the trial court conducted a mini-trial at the stage of framing of charges and passed the discharge order on a "selective reading of the prosecution case".
