The Delhi High Court has rejected former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) communications in-charge Vijay Nair’s application seeking recall of a five-month-old order concerning the hearing of preliminary objections in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) revision petition in the Delhi excise policy case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in an order dated October 9, 2026, held that the judicial record could not be displaced merely because a lawyer subsequently disputed what had been recorded during the hearing.
Background
The CBI has challenged a February 27, 2026, order of the Rouse Avenue Court discharging all 23 accused in the excise policy case. Nair and other respondents raised preliminary objections questioning the maintainability of the CBI’s revision petition.
In an order dated May 8, 2026, Justice Sharma recorded that the CBI had proposed hearing these objections alongside arguments on the main petition and that the respondents’ counsel had no objection. The direction was reiterated by the successor Bench on August 17, 2026.
Nair subsequently sought recall of the direction, contending that his counsel had not agreed to the objections being heard together with the main petition. He argued that the question of whether the revision petition had been properly instituted should be decided before the court examined its merits.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for Nair, submitted that the earlier order had incorrectly recorded the respondents’ consent. He also filed an affidavit taking responsibility for the assertion and sought deletion of the relevant sentence.
Opposing the application, the CBI argued that it had been filed after five months and would delay proceedings, particularly when the matter was scheduled for arguments before the roster Bench on October 14, 2026.
Justice Sharma noted that the matter had been listed on several occasions after the May order, including in May, July, August and October, without any application seeking correction of the record.
The Court observed,
“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.”
The judge also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak (1982), which established that statements in a judicial record about what transpired in court cannot ordinarily be contradicted through an affidavit. The Court noted that no objection had been raised when the earlier order was dictated in open court.
Justice Sharma dismissed Nair’s application, holding that it lacked merit. However, the Court clarified that its decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the preliminary objections challenging the maintainability of the CBI’s revision petition.
The Court left the roster Bench free to consider any other plea raised before it.
