New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday reserved its judgment on a plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convenor Arvind Kejriwal, seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) appeal in the Delhi excise policy case.
In an unusual development, Kejriwal chose to argue his application personally before the court. The hearing witnessed a detailed exchange of legal arguments, with the AAP leader raising concerns over potential bias and seeking a fresh bench for adjudication.
As the proceedings concluded, Justice Sharma remarked that Kejriwal had “argued well” and even suggested that he had the potential to become a lawyer. Responding to the observation, Kejriwal stated that he had already found his “calling” and was content with his current role.
Court reserves order on recusal plea
While reserving the order, Justice Sharma made a noteworthy observation, stating that it was the first time in her judicial career that a litigant had requested her to recuse from a case.
“I learnt a lot about recusal jurisprudence. For the first time in my life someone has asked me to recuse. I learnt a lot. I hope I will give a good judgment,” she said, as reported by LiveLaw.
The court’s decision on whether Justice Sharma will continue to hear the matter is now awaited and is likely to have significant implications for the ongoing proceedings in the excise policy case.
Kejriwal alleges apprehension of bias
During his arguments, Kejriwal expressed concerns regarding what he termed as a “reasonable apprehension” of not receiving a fair hearing. He pointed out that Justice Sharma frequently hears appeals filed by investigative agencies such as the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
“I was almost declared guilty. I was almost declared corrupt. Only the sentence was left to be pronounced,” Kejriwal told the court, referring to earlier observations made during proceedings.
He further emphasised that his plea for recusal was grounded in legal principles and precedent. Citing past rulings, including the Kanak Lata case, Kejriwal argued that strong prior observations by a judge could create a perception of bias, thereby justifying recusal.
“There exists in my mind real, grave and reasonable apprehension that this petition will not get a fair hearing. I am showing 10 grounds of apprehension,” he said.
Reference to past rulings and events
Kejriwal also referred to previous hearings in which Justice Sharma had denied him relief, including rejection of bail pleas in connection with the excise policy case involving other accused such as Manish Sisodia and K. Kavitha.
Additionally, the AAP leader raised concerns over the judge’s participation in events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), which he noted is ideologically associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
These factors, according to Kejriwal, contributed to his apprehension regarding the neutrality of the proceedings.
Legal and political significance
The case assumes importance not only from a legal standpoint but also due to its political implications. The Delhi excise policy case has been at the centre of political debate, with multiple senior leaders facing scrutiny.
Kejriwal’s decision to argue his own case adds a unique dimension to the proceedings, reflecting both a legal strategy and a political message. His plea for recusal raises broader questions about judicial impartiality and the standards governing recusal in India’s legal system.
Legal experts note that recusal requests are relatively rare and are typically considered based on whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, rather than mere dissatisfaction with prior rulings.
Conclusion
With the judgment now reserved, all eyes are on the Delhi High Court’s forthcoming decision. The outcome will determine whether Justice Sharma continues to preside over the matter or if the case is reassigned to another bench.
The ruling is expected to set an important precedent in matters relating to judicial recusal and could influence how similar pleas are approached in the future.