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 repeatingsupporting BJPs demand made well before AAP sprang up c That the Discoms have responded to AAPs demand  and other AAPs allegations first publicly raised by AAP in Oct  citing interalia AAP cofounder Prashant Bhushan as a party in the case who knows the present Constitutional impossibility of CAG auditing their accounts Which discoms rebuttal should get equal coverage in this article if AAPs promotional fringe theories are permitted The defamation has been withdrawn from AAP websites pol khol page which can be independently verified which is why I again request  stable secondary sources Several authentic links for eg on DERCs website about Prashant Bhushans involvementimpleadment 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