This Article is From Sep 08, 2016

Delhi Court On Why It Exempted Arvind Kejriwal From Appearing In Person

Delhi Court On Why It Exempted Arvind Kejriwal From Appearing In Person

Arvind Kejriwal sought permanent exemption from personal appearance before court in defamation case.

New Delhi: Delhi High Court today granted exemption to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal from appearing in person before a trial court in a criminal defamation case, saying the presence of high dignitaries "creates a nuisance" in the courtroom.

"I can understand that on a specific date he (Kejriwal) is required, but it should not be for every date. Presence of high dignatries creates a nuisance in the courtroom," Justice Mukta Gupta said.

The court's oral observation came on Mr Kejriwal's plea seeking permanent exemption from personal appearance before a trial court in the defamation case filed against him by Amit Sibal, lawyer son of former union minster Kapil Sibal.

The High Court exempted Mr Kejriwal from appearing before the trial court on September 17, the next date of hearing. It, however, clarified that Mr Kejriwal will have to appear if specifically directed by the trial court.

It also said that the matter before the trial court should not be adjourned "due to non-appearance of petitioner". The High Court also sought Amit Sibal's response on Mr Kejriwal's plea by December 6.

Senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, appearing for Mr Kejriwal, submitted that it was not possible for his client to appear on each and every date before a trial court as he being the Chief Minister of Delhi, had many other things to look after.

"Notice has been framed in the matter. Cross examination is going on," the counsel said and asked why his client was required on each and every date.

Mr Kejriwal's contention was countered by senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Amit Sibal, saying the Chief Minister has been seeking exemption on simple grounds like going for 'vipassana'. He cannot get exemption on such grounds and will have to appear before the trial court in the matter, the counsel said.

 
.