Former Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, has requested the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from his ongoing legal case, citing a pattern in her rulings that he believes favors the arguments presented by investigating agencies. In his statements to the court, Kejriwal noted that nearly all requests made by these agencies in connection with the liquor policy investigations have been accepted, with the exception of one instance. He expressed concern that Justice Sharma’s order from March 9 has effectively undermined much of the previous trial court’s decisions.
During a personal appearance in court on Monday, Kejriwal, acknowledging it was his first time arguing in such a setting, admitted to feeling nervous. He argued for Justice Sharma’s withdrawal based on what he perceives as a reasonable fear of bias against him. He pointed out that her court has been moving swiftly on only two cases involving members of the legislative assembly, including his own, which he believes reflects a political bias.
Kejriwal highlighted his concerns over perceived partiality and referenced social media posts that he argues indicate a conflict of interest for the court. In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), criticized Kejriwal’s claims, questioning whether court decisions should be influenced by public opinion or social media commentary.
After an extensive hearing lasting over four hours, the court reserved its judgment on the recusal requests submitted by Kejriwal, along with several other defendants including Manish Sisodia and Vijay Nair. On February 27, the trial court had discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 21 others, while expressing dissatisfaction with the CBI’s case, deeming it fundamentally flawed.
The order issued by Justice Sharma on March 9, which came in response to the CBI’s challenge against the discharge of 23 accused in the liquor policy case, had put a hold on departmental proceedings that the trial court had mandated against the investigating officer involved.
Kejriwal contended that the court had shown undue leniency to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) by deferring its proceedings without a formal request. He remarked on the ongoing criminal revision petitions in her court since the assignment of the MP/MLA roster, reiterating his belief in a significant political bias against those opposing the current government.
He referenced the trial court’s thorough proceedings from November 3 to February 12, which involved reviewing 40,000 pages of documents that led to their discharge, stating, “It appeared that the investigation had been conducted with a predetermined agenda.” Kejriwal expressed shock at Justice Sharma’s ruling on March 9, which was made without a hearing or notice to other parties, raising serious doubts about the potential for receiving fair treatment in court.
