New Delhi, May 6 -- Delhi High Court judge Swarana Kanta Sharma on Tuesday said she would appoint three senior advocates as amicus curiae on Friday to represent former CM Arvind Kejriwal, former deputy CM Manish Sisodia and AAP leader Durgesh Pathak in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI's) appeal against their discharge in the excise policy case, following the trio's decision to boycott proceedings. An amicus curiae is a lawyer or expert appointed by a court to assist it in a case. This was after the court noted that Kejriwal , Sisodia, and Pathak chose not appear. "Three (Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak) are not appearing? I will appoint a senior in this case as amicus for 8 (Sisodia), 18 (Kejriwal) and 19 (Pathak) and thus I think it will be appropriate that I hear the argument of CBI once I appoint an amicus...," the judge said.On February 27, a trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the case, holding that CBI's material did not even disclose a prima facie case, prompting the agency to challenge the order before the HC. On March 9, Justice Sharma stayed the trial court's direction for departmental action against a CBI officer, calling the remarks prima facie misconceived, and deferred ED proceedings. On March 11, Kejriwal sought transfer of the case to another judge, which was rejected on March 13. He, along with Sisodia and four others, then moved an application before the judge seeking her recusal. On April 20, the judge dismissed the applications, holding there was no "demonstrable cause" for recusal and warning that stepping aside on perceived bias would set a disturbing precedent. However, a week after the April 20 verdict, when the court was to commence hearing CBI's arguments, Kejriwal wrote a letter to Justice Sharma saying that neither he nor his counsel would appear in the matter. In his letter, the AAP chief said that after dismissal of his recusal application, he had carefully reflected on the options available to him. Stating that his "well-grounded apprehensions" remained unresolved, he said the judgment left him with the impression that his legitimate concerns had been perceived as a personal attack on the judge and an "assault" on the institution itself. The matter will now be heard on Friday....