Amicus appointment for Kejriwal, Sisodia deferred

The Delhi excise-policy case has hit another procedural snag. The High Court was supposed to settle who would speak for Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Durgesh Pathak after the three AAP leaders stopped appearing in the case. But on Monday, May 11, 2026, that did not happen, because Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma did not hold court for the second time in a week. So the hearing on the CBI’s appeal is still stuck before the merits even begin. ### Why is the court trying to appoint amici at all? Because the case cannot just sit there if accused persons refuse to participate. Last week, the High Court said it would appoint three senior advocates as amici curiae — basically, court-appointed lawyers who assist the bench and ensure the matter can move forward — for Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak after they chose to boycott the proceedings. The judge made clear that the CBI’s arguments on the appeal would start only after those appointments were in place. (hindustantimes.com) ### What case is this, exactly? This is the CBI’s challenge to a trial court order from February 27, 2026, which discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak in the Delhi excise-policy case. A discharge order means the trial court found the material before it insufficient to proceed against them in that case at that stage. The CBI appealed, and that is the matter now pending before the Delhi High Court. (hindustantimes.com) ### Why did Kejriwal and Sisodia boycott the hearing? The immediate trigger was a fight over the judge. Kejriwal had sought Justice Sharma’s recusal, and that plea was rejected. After that, he, Sisodia, and Pathak chose not to appear in the proceedings. The High Court then moved toward appointing outside senior lawyers so the appeal would not be derailed by that boycott. (hindustantimes.com) ### Why wasn’t the appointment finalized on Friday? Friday’s hearing ended with the court saying it was still waiting for consent from certain senior advocates it was considering for the amicus role. So instead of naming them that day, the bench said it would pass an order on Monday, May 11. That already told you the process was more delicate than it might sound — the court was not just picking names off a list. (indiatoday.in) ### And what went wrong on Monday? Nothing dramatic in the legal sense — the court simply did not sit. That meant the order appointing the amici could not be passed, again. Hindustan Times says this was the second time in a week that Justice Sharma did not hold court, which is why the appointment got pushed back once more. (hindustantimes.com) ### Why does this procedural delay matter? Because this is the gate before the real hearing. The CBI cannot properly open its challenge to the discharge order until the court settles representation for the absent accused. So every delay here stretches the pre-hearing phase in a politically sensitive corruption case involving a former Delhi chief minister and former deputy chief minister. (hindustantimes.com) ### Is this about guilt or innocence? Not yet. Right now, the fight is over process — who represents the absent leaders, whether the appeal can proceed, and whether the trial court was right to discharge them. The High Court has not reached the stage of deciding the underlying allegations on merits in this appeal. (hindustantimes.com) ### Bottom line The news is narrow but important. The High Court still has not named the lawyers who would let the CBI’s appeal move ahead. Until that happens, one of the biggest remaining excise-policy battles around Kejriwal and Sisodia stays stuck in procedural limbo. (hindustantimes.com) (hindustantimes.com)