On Monday, former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal appeared in the Delhi High Court, flanked by an array of legal counsel, to personally present his application requesting the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) revision plea concerning the excise policy case.
The CBI has contested a trial court’s decision that discharged Kejriwal, the national convener of the Aam Aadmi Party, along with 22 others, in connection with the alleged liquor policy scam.
During the proceedings, Justice Sharma acknowledged the recusal application, issuing a notice and scheduling the matter for a comprehensive hearing on April 13.
At 2:45 PM in Court No. 25, Kejriwal stated, “I have filed a recusal application; please take it on record.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, promptly objected, asserting, “Please maintain decorum; it is my petition, and I wish to address four points.”
Mehta expressed concern over the nature of allegations made against institutions, stating, “Certain individuals in this country pursue careers based on unfounded allegations against others, which must be taken seriously.”
He emphasized that if Kejriwal intends to advocate for himself in this case, he must forgo the services of his attorney and personally address the court at each hearing. “I have no issue with him arguing personally; however, this esteemed court is not a platform for theatrics, where one can perform for a day and then return to having their lawyer take over,” Mehta remarked.
Mehta further claimed that the CBI has received recusal applications from seven of the 23 accused individuals. He suggested that if others wish to join in, they should do so within a week to avoid the appearance of a coordinated effort to file these applications sequentially. “They either have faith in this court or they do not; we can see through the strategy,” he noted.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, also representing the CBI, added, “We must ensure that the purpose of delays does not persist.”
In response to the CBI’s request, Justice Sharma instructed that any additional accused who wish to submit a recusal application should do so promptly, “so that I can resolve this matter conclusively and avoid piecemeal hearings.” She further stated, “If anyone brings this application later, I will not entertain it.”
Standing calmly before Justice Sharma in a half-sleeve shirt, Kejriwal informed the court, “I have submitted a recusal application. According to High Court procedures, a petitioner-in-person is not permitted to file electronically; I require the court’s permission to proceed through the registry. Alternatively, if the court can accept my hard copies today, I am prepared to argue either today or on a subsequent date.”
Kejriwal clarified that he intends to argue the recusal application personally and will assert his legal rights thereafter. “Currently, I have not executed a vakalatnama to anyone, so there is no question of discharging a lawyer,” he responded to Mehta’s claims.
While Mehta characterized the allegations in the recusal petitions as “frivolous, vexatious, and contemptuous,” the court officially took Kejriwal’s application on record and issued a notice. The registry was also instructed to acknowledge the application.
The High Court is currently reviewing the CBI’s revision petition against the trial court’s February 27 ruling that opted not to advance the case against Kejriwal and the other accused.
This case has been assigned to Justice Sharma, who oversees criminal cases involving Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly.
On March 9, the bench halted the trial court’s comments that suggested departmental action against the Investigating Officer without hearing the accused’s arguments. Justice Sharma indicated that the stay was warranted due to “certain factual inconsistencies” identified in the trial court’s ruling, which appeared to contain erroneous statements regarding witness testimonies made at the charge stage. She additionally requested a postponement of the trial court’s proceedings concerning the Enforcement Directorate case.
In March, Kejriwal, along with former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and others, sought the intervention of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya to have the case reassigned from Justice Sharma’s roster to a different bench, citing concerns over potential bias. However, this request was denied, and an appeal was subsequently filed with the Supreme Court, which was later withdrawn.
As of now, only four out of the 23 accused have responded to the CBI’s petition. During the proceedings on Monday, the courtroom was so crowded that some legal representatives were forced to stand outside and participate virtually. Following the conclusion of the session, Justice Sharma humorously remarked, “Widen this court’s door.”
Sohini Ghosh serves as a Senior Correspondent for The Indian Express. Having previously reported from Ahmedabad, she has recently transitioned to the New Delhi bureau.
