Kejriwal Argues His Plea For Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's Recusal : Live Updates From Delhi High Court | Liquor Policy Case

Mehta: The first order of March 9, they were served and chose not to remain present. The court could have stayed the order of discharge but it was neither prayed nor court considered that. Interim order is of such nature that doesn’t cause any prejudice to them.

Mehta: From SC to this court and other high courts have attended functions of adhiwakta parishad and spoke on law. I dont want to name and sensationalise. But please have a look, another judge of this court. Would this judge be also disqualified? One sitting judge of SC with your ladyship and subject was same. His (Kejriwal) bail is granted by one of SC judges who attended Adhiwakta Parishad. It is disheartening that someone can even raise this contention.

Mehta on allegation that Justice Sharma attended Adhiwakta Parishad events: I have very serious view on that. Political views of parties may be anything. But it is a bar association. There is nothing like ideologically inclined. The moot question would be if any judge is invited by a bar association to speak on subject of law and not on ideology, would judge be justified in refusing?

Mehta: The bench was fully conscious. Your ladyships has not stayed but only said that ED case be adjourned. A balancing equity order was passed that dont dispose of ED proceedings. Otherwise all properties get released. Properties were attached.

Mehta: In order of March 9, the court first issued notice. There was a specific application by cbi saying that stay the observations against cbi officials. ED trial is never a standalone trial. It has to have a predicate offence. Thats the law. The moment an order is an absolutely wrong order, predicate offence is put an end to. The only consequence would have been that ED case also meets the same fate….. Please see the order.

Mehta: See the conduct, that this application is not a bona fide application.

Judgment in discharge application was reserved on February 22 and judgment delivered on February 27. Matter was listed on March 9. I will show HC Rules permit that party’s lawyers can be served and they were served. Same counsels who were served are appearing now.

Mehta: SC granted bail not because the court was not in agreement with findings but because of long incarceration. Only on that ground Mr. Sisodia was granted bail.

Mehta: These are all tentative observations. And they have to be made, in absence of which the order will be bad.

Mehta: It has to be gone into. This provision in larger interest. Validity of provision is upheld in Vijay Madanlal case.

Mehta now refers to order denying bail to Sanjay Singh.

Mehta: Law requires in the interest of accused that court goes into it.