Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal began his arguments before the Delhi High Court on Monday, saying he was not questioning the impartiality of the court but he had a real and reasonable apprehension that he would not get a fair trial. Let us tell you that Kejriwal has demanded the removal of Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma in the CBI excise policy case.
Kejriwal himself appeared in the court and argued his case on the principle that even a reasonable apprehension of bias is enough to duly seek the judge’s recuse from the court.
He told the court that his petition was based on ten specific grounds and stressed that the issue was one of perception, not proof of actual bias.
The main point of his arguments was that the Court’s previous comments in related cases were so “strong” that they appeared tantamount to final decisions.
He cited several previous cases, including that of the co-accused, to argue that such comments now cast doubt on the current proceedings. He said, “The question is whether those previous comments are still relevant in the mind of the court?”
Kejriwal compared these comments to the trial court’s order that granted the acquittal after months of daily hearings that said no crime, bribery or crime proceeds had been proven, and also questioned the credibility of witness statements. He argued that the High Court’s interim intervention, especially the order passed on March 9 without hearing all the parties, has weakened those findings.
He asked, “What was the need for such an order?” And said that this raises serious doubts in his mind.
He further argued that release orders should not be easily stayed, citing prior decisions of the Supreme Court and saying that the partial stay granted in his case effectively weakened the findings of the trial court.
He also expressed concern over the pace of the proceedings, saying his case was being heard at an unusually fast pace compared to other criminal review cases, including those involving opposition leaders.
Seeking parity, Kejriwal cited instances where he was allowed to recuse himself from the case only on the basis of apprehension. “I’m just asking for equal standards,” he said, adding that his concerns were “on more solid grounds.”
Throughout his arguments, Kejriwal stressed that his petition was limited and procedural in nature, and stressed that the issue of the judge’s removal was a matter “between the court and the party concerned” and not a matter for the prosecution.
However, the Court indicated that it would confine the hearing only to the application to recuse the judge from the case and the grounds raised, and also said that issues relating to the merits of the lower court order would be considered separately.
Opposing the plea, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the application as “frivolous, vexatious and baseless” and argued that it is based on conjecture and has been filed with the aim of weakening the institution of the judiciary.
He said dissatisfaction with interim comments could in no way justify a judge recusing from the case and warned that such practices could lead to increased arbitrariness on the part of judges.
CBI said that the interim comments are provisional and cannot be considered partisan. She defended the March 9 order, saying courts are empowered to pass interim directions on the basis of available material and legal questions, even if the entire lower court record is not examined at that stage.
The agency also argued that serving the notice through the lawyer is legally valid and the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) continue until final acquittal in the original offence.
The agency denied any undue haste in the proceedings and cited the need for speedy adjudication in cases involving public representatives. Concluding its arguments, the CBI urged the court to dismiss the petition with costs, calling it an abuse of process.
The high court is currently hearing the CBI’s plea challenging the trial court’s acquittal of Kejriwal, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and others in the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 case.
Earlier, the Chief Justice had rejected the request to transfer the case and left the question of recusing himself from the case to be decided by the bench concerned.
The case pertains to alleged irregularities in the now-canceled Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, which is still being investigated by central agencies, and several Aam Aadmi Party leaders have been made accused.
Meanwhile, on Monday, former Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party national convenor Arvind Kejriwal reached the Delhi High Court for hearing on his petition. He filed his petition before Justice Swarnkant Sharma.
Refusing to comment on the case outside the courtroom, Kejriwal, speaking to reporters, said, “I will speak only before the court. The matter is sub-judice.”