New Delhi, 14 May (H.S.): Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's bench, hearing the Delhi excise scam case in the Delhi High Court, will initiate contempt proceedings against certain individuals. On Thursday, Justice Sharma stated that she will no longer remain silent in this matter. She announced that she will issue contempt notices to some respondents for making defamatory statements against her in this case.

Justice Sharma remarked that due to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Durgesh Pathak boycotting the hearings, she was in the process of appointing senior lawyers as amicus curiae, but meanwhile, some people are leveling disrespectful allegations against the court. In such a situation, she will initiate contempt proceedings. The court's order will be issued at 5 p.m.

Previously, on May 8, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's bench had stated that the court was awaiting the consent of representatives for Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Durgesh Pathak.

On May 5, the High Court had ordered the appointment of three lawyers as amicus curiae to assist the court. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's bench had stated that since Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Durgesh Pathak have decided to boycott the court's hearings in this matter, three amicus curiae will be appointed.

In this case, Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak have decided to boycott the hearings. None of the three has indicated either appearing themselves or presenting arguments through any lawyer. The three have written a letter to the High Court stating that they do not trust Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and therefore will observe satyagraha.

On April 20, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had rejected Arvind Kejriwal's request to recuse herself from hearing the CBI's petition against the acquittal order in the Delhi excise case. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had stated that she would deliver her judgment without being influenced by this allegation, just as she has always done during her 34 years of judicial service.

The court had remarked that the judiciary and the institution have been put on trial. The path chosen is to resolve the dispute. The power of the judiciary lies in its firm resolve to decide on allegations. I have written these orders without being influenced by anything. Justice Sharma had stated that I will issue the order in Hindi because the arguments were also made in Hindi. I am giving the example where Arvind Kejriwal and his party's leaders were granted relief on the first date. The court had cited an order in which a one-sided order was issued in favor of Kejriwal.

Arvind Kejriwal had raised questions on Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's bench and demanded her recusal from the hearing. While demanding that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recuse herself from hearing the case, Kejriwal had stated that the way judicial proceedings have taken place in this matter so far, he does not see any hope of fair justice. Kejriwal had claimed that the sessions court order was wrongly described without hearing the other side. He had stated that on March 9, when the first hearing took place in the High Court, not a single accused out of 23 was present there. Only CBI was present in the court. But Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had stated on the very first hearing, without hearing the other side's arguments, that prima facie the sessions court order appears wrong. Without summoning the records and without hearing arguments, how did the court reach this conclusion.

---------------

Hindusthan Samachar / Jun Sarkar