- A Tamil Nadu court awarded death sentence to 9 cops in 2020 custodial torture of P Jayaraj, his son J Benicks
- The court underlined that this was a "case of abuse of authority"
- "Father and son stripped, ruthlessly assaulted... Heart shudders reading about it," the court said
After waiting for nearly three hours, former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal appeared in person in the Delhi High Court seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the CBI petition challenging the discharge of the AAP convenor and all other accused in the liquor policy case.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for CBI, at the outset termed the recusal petition by Kejriwal and seven others as "frivolous, vexatious and contemptuous".
The Solicitor General argued that the court was not a forum for theatrics and that Kejriwal should discharge his lawyer if he wanted to appear in person in the case.
"Some people in this country make a career out of making baseless allegations against everyone. That will have to be taken seriously. It is an allegation against the institution and we will have to support that institution," Mehta said, tearing into prayers made by Kejriwal, who sought the transfer of his case to another judge.
If Kejriwal wishes to argue the matter himself, the Solicitor General said, he should do so consistently.
"If Mr Kejriwal wants to appear personally, I have no objection. But then he will have to continue to appear personally. He cannot come once in the court for pure theatrics and thereafter let his lawyer argue. This forum is not for theatrics," Mehta said.
Kejriwal asserted that he would argue the recusal application himself and would exercise his "legal rights" on the aspect of being represented by a lawyer subsequently.
He requested the court to take his application on record as, being a litigant appearing in person, he was unable to e-file it on the high court portal.
"I will need the court's permission. I am ready to argue today or on any other date. I will argue this application myself and exercise my legal rights thereafter," he said.
The court allowed the CBI to file its reply to the recusal application submitted by Arvind Kejriwal and others and listed the matter for next Monday.
The court also noted that Arvind Kejriwal has now withdrawn the petition he filed in the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of his case to another bench.
The bench also issued a stern warning to those who have not yet responded to the CBI's plea, stating that their rights to submit a reply could be closed. "Even today, if you give your reply, I will accept it," the court added.
The case stems from a CBI challenge to a trial court order in the Delhi liquor policy case.
Earlier, on February 27, the Rouse Avenue Court had discharged 23 individuals in the CBI case linked to the alleged liquor policy irregularities. The Central Bureau of Investigation subsequently moved the High Court against that discharge order.
On March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice to all 23 accused on CBI's plea against their discharge, saying certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appeared erroneous and needed consideration.
She also stayed the trial court's recommendation on the initiation of departmental action against the CBI's investigating officer in the liquor policy case.
Later, Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, DK Upadhyaya, declined Kejriwal's request to transfer the CBI's plea from Justice Sharma to another judge and said that a call for recusal has to be taken by the judge concerned.
In a representation made on March 11, Kejriwal, as well as AAP leader Manish Sisodia, along with other accused in the liquor policy case, claimed there was a "grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension" that the hearing in the matter before Justice Sharma would not be impartial and neutral.
Following the refusal, Kejriwal, along with former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, had moved the Supreme Court seeking directions to transfer the CBI's appeal from Justice Sharma's bench to another bench.
The High Court ultimately took the applications for recusal on record while saying that if any other former accused person wishes to file more recusal applications they can do so.
The High Court had earlier issued notice on the CBI's plea and granted an interim stay on certain strong observations made against the agency by Justice Jitender Singh.
Notably, on the past three occasions, Kejriwal and others had not filed their replies to the CBI's petition. The High Court had, in the previous hearing, granted what it termed a "last opportunity" to file responses.
On Monday, the court noted that replies were still pending from several former accused, including Kejriwal.
The CBI has alleged deliberate delay by former accused, including Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, in not filing their replies in the case.
The court is expected to pass an order later in the day on whether to grant further time to file replies.
