The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected a plea seeking a preliminary hearing on the objection to the maintainability of the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) revision petition challenging the discharge of 23 accused persons in the alleged liquor policy scam case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the plea plea moved by one of the accused, Vijay Nair, seeking modification of the Court's earlier directions to ensure that his objection to the maintainability of the CBI's petition is heard and decided before the main matter is taken up on merits.

The Court said that while it does not doubt the sense of responsibility with which the learned senior counsel has approached the matter, the fact remains that the order in question was dictated in open Court and thereafter signed by Justice Sharma.

“The judicial record, which records the proceedings and submissions made before the Court, cannot be displaced merely on the basis of a subsequent assertion to the contrary. No objection was raised by the learned counsel at the time the order was dictated in their presence,” the Court said.

”The order was thereafter uploaded, and five months have elapsed since it was uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, during which period no such application was moved, nor was any prayer made before the concerned Roster Bench seeking correction of the order or requesting that the matter be placed before this Court,” it added.

However, it clarified that rhe Roster Bench shall be at liberty to consider any other plea raised before it and that today's order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the preliminary objections to the maintainability of the revision petition.

The application challenges the direction passed on May 08 and reiterated on August 17 that preliminary objections to the maintainability of the revision petition would be considered along with the main petition.

Nair has contended that the question of whether the revision petition was validly instituted must be decided at the threshold, before the Court examines the merits of the CBI's challenge to the discharge order.

Nair has argued that deciding the maintainability objection first would conserve judicial time, particularly since the CBI's revision petition concerns 23 respondents.

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 latergranted 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 was transferred to Justice Jain later. However, today's application was listed before Justice Sharma as it sought clarification of order passed by her.

Justice Sharma initiated contempt proceedingsagainst 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.