‘Weakening public faith’ vs. ‘justified stand’: legal experts divided over Kejriwal’s decision
Legal experts are divided over Arvind Kejriwal's decision to not appear before the Delhi High Court regarding a plea against his discharge in the excise policy case. Some lawyers argue that his withdrawal undermines public faith in the judicial system, while others support his stance, citing concerns of bias. The court may still proceed without his participation, potentially issuing a bailable warrant or appointing an amicus curiae.
- ▪Arvind Kejriwal decided not to appear before the Delhi High Court judge hearing a plea against his discharge in the excise policy case.
- ▪Some legal experts believe his decision weakens public faith in the judicial process, while others argue it is justified due to concerns of bias.
- ▪The court has the option to compel Kejriwal's attendance or appoint an amicus curiae to ensure both sides are heard.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Members of the legal fraternity expressed contrasting views over Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener Arvind Kejriwal’s decision to not appear before Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who is hearing the CBI’s plea against his discharge by a trial court in the excise policy case.While some lawyers supported the former Delhi Chief Minister’s decision, others insisted that dissatisfaction with judicial orders must be addressed strictly through established legal remedies and not by refusing to participate in court proceedings. Delhi High Court seeks Kejriwal’s stand on plea over court videos circulationSenior advocate Sajan Poovayya described the move as a withdrawal from due process.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at The Hindu.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from The Hindu
