Metropolitan Magistrate Snigdha Sarvaria directed the AAP leader to personally appear before the court on the next date of hearing, considering that bail proceedings were pending.
"Considering that bail proceedings are pending, therefore accused (Kejriwal) is directed to appear in the court on next date of hearing for bail/miscellaneous proceedings...
"Put up for bail/miscellaneous proceedings, appearance of the accused and arguments on framing of notice on December 24," the court said.
In the application seeking exemption for today, advocate Rishikesh Kumar also claimed that there was no absolute necessity for personal attendance of the accused and that the proceedings could go on unhampered in his absence, without any prejudice to the complainant Maulik Bharat Trust, an NGO.
Advocate Rahul Raj Malik, appearing for the complainant, opposed the application, saying "it was filed by Kejriwal to undermine the majesty of justice and the accused himself being the part of the legislative body, was trying to evade from law and the law for every person was the same".
It had noted that there was "sufficient ground" to proceed against him on allegations that he had concealed his correct address and suppressed the market value of his property in his affidavit to the Election Commission.
Earlier, the NGO had approached Delhi High Court with a plea seeking quashing of Kejriwal's nomination papers on the ground of "illegalities" in his affidavit.
The NGO in its petition before the high court had alleged that Kejriwal had violated provisions of the Representation of the People Act by submitting an affidavit which had incorrect details of his assets and income at the time of filing of the nomination.
The complaint was filed under several sections of RP Act and IPC for the alleged offences committed by him before holding the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi.
The complaint alleged that Kejriwal falsely gave the address of Delhi so as to qualify for contesting the polls in the capital though he was living at Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh.
This prima facie amounted to wilful concealment, suppression and furnishing of false information, the complainants claimed.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
