The Delhi High Court on Monday (August 17) granted a final opportunity to AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and various others to respond to CBI's written submissions in the agency's plea challenging the former's discharge in the excise policy corruption case.

The Court has listed the case for hearing CBI's arguments in October.

Previously the high court had granted final opportunity to Kejriwal, Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak to file their response to the plea.

Today, the respondents sought time to respond to the agency's 103-page additional written submissions in the matter.

Justice Manoj Jain after hearing all the parties asked them to file their responses and orally said:

"We are giving 4 weeks to everyone, whatever reply you are required to file but nothing after that. Then we fix the date for beginning arguments from side of petitioner (CBI). Week beginning 5th October. It will be amply clear on that day on that day we will hear from prosecution…"

Meanwhile Kejriwal and Sisodia have filed applications questioning maintainability of CBI's revision petition, contending that the plea was filed within four hours of the trial court's order discharging them. As per them, the said move was done with unprecedented haste and in the most unserious manner.

The court orally said that these applications will also be heard however there will be no "piece-meal hearing".

"Arguments will be heard in comprehensive manner. No piece meal, we will start with them (CBI) and end with you(respondents)...Arguments will be heard in one go," the court orally added.

At the outset senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari appearing for a responded objected to the maintainability of the CBI's plea, arguing that the respondent's applications challenging maintainability of CBI's revision plea be heard first. He said that the CBI's petition was thoroughly misconceived adding that the IO was incompetent to file the revision plea.

Meanwhile senior advocate N Hariharan appearing for Kejriwal said that the agency's written submissions were served on the respondents day before yesterday and it runs into 103 pages. He said that the submissions raise grounds which is not there in the revision plea and if taken on record the respondent would need an opportunity to respond to the same.

Thereafter Senior Advocate Rebecca John representing a respondent referred to the CBI's revision petition and said that it states that the petitioner had "sought leave from the court to amend and raise additional grounds after evaluating a long judgment passed by the trial court". Hariharan said that he was not saying that the petitioner did not have right to raise grounds but the respondents be also given an opportunity to respond to the same.

At this stage the court orally asked, "Question is are you actually interested in filing reply?" To which Hariharan said, "Ofcourse. Till now there were generic grounds". Meanwhile Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the grounds in written submissions were "not new".

The court then orally said, "Everyone is eager to ensure pleadings are complete and so that we start hearing...we have to have assurance from everyone. We are giving opportunity to file opportunity to all others also to file reply. If somebody wants to file additional reply he is also welcome. Take preliminary objections on record, but in view of order date dated May 8 we will request the prosecution with their case. We will take note of your preliminary objection, once they are over...".

Earlier, the Court had issued fresh notices to Kejriwal, Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak regarding transfer of the case to another bench. This, as the trio had boycotted the hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

The matter was transferred to Justice Jain, after Justice Sharma initiated contempt proceedings against Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra, Durgesh Pathak and Saurabh Bharadwaj. She had earlier rejected the recusal applications filed by Kejriwal and others.

A division bench has issued notices to Kejriwal and other AAP leaders in the contempt proceedings. Thereafter, the court had listed a separate contempt plea against Kejriwal, Bharadwaj, AAP leader Gopal Rai and journalist Saurav Das along with suo-motu contempt plea and also issued notice to Rai and Das.

On February 27, the trial court discharged all the 23 accused persons in the case, including political leaders Kejriwal, Sisodia and K Kavitha. The trial court had also severely criticised the CBI's investigation in the case.

It may be noted that the case had become politically controversial, as Kejriwal was arrested and remanded to the custody amidst the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. He was later granted bail by the Supreme Court after 156 days of custody. AAP leader Manish Sisodia also spent 530 days in custody in the case.

The CBI's revision against the trial court's order was heard by Justice Sharma, who on March 9, prima facie observed that the trial court's observations were erroneous.

Later, Kejriwal and some other accused, including Sisodia, filed applications seeking recusal of Justice Sharma on ground of apprehension of bias. Justice Sharma, dismissed the recusal applications and decided to hear the matter herself.

Thereafter, Kejriwal and Sisodia wrote to Justice Sharma stating that they are boycotting the hearing before her and will not appear, either in person or through a counsel.

The matter is now listed on October 5 and 6.

Case title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION V/s KULDEEP SINGH & ORS. and Batch

CRL.REV.P.-134/2026 and connected petitions