Irrelevant to the topic and TLDR Please confine yourself to a CAG audit of Discoms b That the demand was originally raised by BJP not AAP ie AAP is only repeating supporting BJP s demand made well before AAP sprang up c That the Discoms have responded to AAP s demand and other AAP s allegations first publicly raised by AAP in Oct 2012 citing inter alia AAP co founder Prashant Bhushan as a party in the case who knows the present Constitutional impossibility of CAG auditing their accounts Which discom s rebuttal should get equal coverage in this article if AAP s promotional fringe theories are permitted The defamation has been withdrawn from AAP website s pol khol page which can be independently verified which is why I again request stable secondary sources Several authentic links for eg on DERC s website about Prashant Bhushan s involvement impleadment are available online and are NOT restricted to your link He was not acting as a lawyer he was impleaded as a intervening party and was represented by his brother Jayant Bhushan who is a senior advocate