- Arvind Kejriwal has sought recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, citing concerns about bias.
- Kejriwal argued the court showed bias by granting relief to Enforcement Directorate prematurely.
- A trial court has discharged Kejriwal and others, criticising CBI's case as wholly discredited.
Delhi's former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was appearing in Delhi High Court for the first time to present his arguments to have a judge recuse, told the court that he was apprehensive that the judge was biased and he was not convinced that he would get a fair hearing.
Kejriwal and the others discharged in the liquor policy case have sought that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recuse from the hearing of a petition by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the trial court's decision. The court has accepted Kejriwal's application.
"This court dismissed the lower court's verdict, which spanned over 5,000 pages, in a mere five minutes," Kejriwal said in his argument beffore Sharma. "Following the court's verdict, I wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court. I received a written response stating that, once a case has been assigned, only the concerned judge can decide to recuse himself from the matter," he said.
Kejriwal, who was personally arguing his recusal application, had taken a few wrong turns and was set right by the judge. He then told the judge that this was his first appearance in court. To this, the judge responded, "May God grant that you never have to return."
"Personally, I hold you in high regard," Kejriwal further told Sharma. To this, she responded, "We, too, respect you". "There is nothing personal involved here," interjected Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the CBI..
In his arguments, Kejriwal had sought to read from the trial court's judgment despite the judge's disapproval and cited a Supreme Court judgment. His lawyer stepped in repeatedly to bolster his arguments. The exasperated judge, who had been asking the advocate to desist from assisting the former Chief Minister, at one point said, "Don't stare at me".
Kejriwal has presented 10 points before the court, explaining why he believes a fair hearing will not take place in this matter.
The court, Kejriwal argued, had granted relief to the Enforcement Directorate even without a formal application.
"The Court appeared remarkably generous in granting relief to the ED... The ED filed a formal application before your court regarding this matter two days after the fact -your Court had already granted relief to the ED in this very case two days prior to the application being filed," he said.
"This verdict has instilled a sense of apprehension within me regarding this court... The very language employed by this Court in its order also betrays a discernible bias," he added.
On February 27, the trial court had discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and 21 others in the excise policy case and pulled up the CBI, saying its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
Seeking dismissal of the recusal application, the CBI had said that AAP leaders cannot seek the recusal of Justice Sharma merely because she attended a "legal seminar" organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, an RSS-affiliated confederation of lawyers, as it does not demonstrate any ideological association.
The CBI asserted that making "unscrupulous" and "sweeping" allegations of bias over attending legal seminars was an attempt to lower the court's authority and amounted to contempt of court.
