Arvind Kejriwal Appears in Delhi High Court to Challenge Judge in CBI Liquor Policy Case
In a significant legal development, former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal made a personal appearance before the Delhi High Court on Monday. He formally sought the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from presiding over a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) petition that contests his discharge in the high-profile liquor policy case.
Court Proceedings and Kejriwal's Personal Argument
The court acknowledged Kejriwal's application for recusal and scheduled it for a detailed hearing on April 13. During the proceedings, Kejriwal announced his intention to argue the application himself, stating, "I will exercise my legal rights. Right now, I have not issued vakalatnama to anyone." This declaration came after the court inquired if he planned to personally present his case.
Justice Sharma recorded Kejriwal's presence and directed the CBI to submit its response to the plea by Tuesday. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the investigative agency, strongly opposed the recusal request. He argued that if Kejriwal wished to appear in person, he should formally discharge his lawyer, emphasizing that the courtroom is "not a forum for theatrics."
Legal Arguments and Counterarguments
Kejriwal countered by asserting that his recusal plea was filed in strict compliance with high court rules and procedures. He highlighted that as a litigant appearing in person, he required legal assistance to electronically file such an application, which necessitated involving a lawyer initially.
In response, Solicitor General Mehta sought the dismissal of the application, labeling it as serious and contentious. He remarked, "This is something very serious, and some people in this country make a career out of making reckless, baseless allegations, expecting them to be taken seriously. The allegations made by him (Kejriwal) are not only frivolous and vexatious, but they are also contemptuous." Mehta further noted that seven other discharged accused individuals have also filed similar recusal applications.
Justice Sharma addressed this by stating, "If anyone else wants to file the application, please do it so that I can decide it once and for all," and postponed the matter to next week for further consideration.
Background of the Liquor Policy Case
The controversy stems from a trial court's decision on February 27, which discharged Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 others. The court criticized the CBI, stating that its case was entirely unable to withstand judicial scrutiny and was discredited in its entirety.
In March, the Delhi High Court issued notices to all 23 accused based on the CBI's appeal against their discharge. The court observed that certain findings and observations by the trial court during the charge-framing stage appeared prima facie erroneous and warranted thorough examination. Additionally, the high court stayed the trial court's recommendation for departmental action against the CBI investigating officer involved in the liquor policy case.
Subsequently, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court rejected Kejriwal's request to transfer the CBI's plea from Justice Sharma to another judge, ruling that the decision on recusal must be made by the concerned judge herself.
Allegations of Bias and Impartiality Concerns
In a representation dated March 11, Kejriwal, along with Sisodia and other accused, expressed a "grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension" that hearings before Justice Sharma would lack impartiality and neutrality. This claim underscores the ongoing legal tensions and the high stakes involved in the liquor policy case, which continues to unfold in the judicial arena.
