Delhi HC's Amicus Move Keeps Kejriwal Excise Case Alive
By appointing amici curiae after the AAP leaders’ boycott, the Delhi High Court is preventing the excise appeal from stalling.
The Delhi High Court is trying to stop the Kejriwal-Sisodia boycott from turning a criminal appeal into a procedural stand-off: it said it will appoint three senior advocates as amici curiae after Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak refused to appear before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the CBI’s challenge to their discharge in the excise case. 
The Hindu
Why it matters
The leverage sits with the court, not the accused. Kejriwal and Sisodia are trying to convert a recusal dispute into a broader legitimacy fight, after Justice Sharma rejected Kejriwal’s bias plea on April 20 and the two leaders said they would not appear before her, in person or through counsel. The Hindu The Hindu The Hindu
That tactic has two aims. First, it keeps the AAP leadership in the posture of a party alleging judicial bias, which plays well politically and lets it frame the excise case as persecution rather than prosecution. Second, it slows the CBI’s appeal against the trial court order that discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in February, a ruling the agency said ignored material parts of its investigation. The Hindu
But the High Court is not obliged to let that boycott freeze the case. By naming amici curiae, it preserves an adversarial hearing without conceding the recusal demand. That is a narrow procedural fix, but it matters: it keeps the CBI’s appeal moving and denies the accused the ability to stop the process simply by refusing to show up. For the wider institutional angle, see 
India.
What this means for the case
The CBI gains if the court keeps treating this as a merits appeal. Its best outcome is simple: a clean hearing on whether the discharge order should stand. The agency has already forced that question into the High Court, and the court has asked for the full trial record, which signals that the bench is willing to examine the case on substance, not just posture. The Hindu
AAP loses if the amicus route works. The party can still claim the recusal issue is unresolved, but it cannot easily translate that claim into a halt in proceedings. More broadly, this is a reminder that in politically charged prosecutions, the courtroom battle is often won by controlling procedure: who appears, who refuses, and whether the bench keeps the file moving.
Watch next
Watch the next Delhi High Court listing on the CBI’s discharge challenge. If the appointed amici begin arguing the accused side, the boycott loses force; if they do not, the recusal fight will keep shadowing the merits and delay the court’s decision.
