New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice on a recusal application filed by AAP National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal, who appeared in person and sought that the matter relating to the alleged excise policy case be heard by a Bench other than that of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
The development came during the hearing of a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging a trial court order discharging Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and other accused in the corruption case linked to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22.
At the outset, Kejriwal submitted before the Delhi High Court that he had filed an application seeking the recusal of Justice Sharma and requested that it be taken on record.
Appearing in person, the former Delhi Chief Minister said he wished to avail his legal right to argue the matter himself.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, strongly objected to the recusal plea, terming the allegations “baseless” and “contemptuous”.
“Some people in this country make a career out of making allegations. This is for the first time that this respondent has made baseless allegations against this august institution. It’s not only frivolous and vexatious, but it’s contemptuous also,” SG Mehta submitted.
The Centre’s second-highest law officer added that while the probe agency had no objection to Kejriwal appearing and arguing in person, he could not adopt a “hybrid” approach. “If Mr Kejriwal wants to appear personally, 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,” SG Mehta argued.
He also highlighted that, except for a few respondents, most respondents — including Kejriwal — had failed to file their replies despite earlier directions of the Delhi High Court, and cautioned that if the recusal pleas were ultimately rejected, it should invite contempt proceedings.
In response, Kejriwal contended that, as per procedure, a petitioner appearing in person cannot directly file an application without orders of the Delhi High Court, and therefore sought that his plea be formally taken on record. Kejriwal reiterated that he intended to argue the matter himself.
Taking note of the submissions, Justice Sharma said it would issue notice on the application and directed that replies be filed. The judge also observed that if any other party wished to move a similar application seeking recusal, the same could be filed so that all such pleas could be decided together.
The Delhi High Court further directed that written submissions be placed on record and listed the matter for further hearing on April 13 at 2:30 p.m.
The Delhi High Court is presently seized of multiple connected matters arising out of the trial court’s February 27 order, which had discharged all accused, holding that the material on record did not disclose a larger conspiracy in the formulation of the now-scrapped excise policy.
The CBI has challenged the discharge order, terming it “perverse”, while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has sought expunction of adverse observations made against it by the trial court.
Separately, Kejriwal has already approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice to reject his request for transfer of the CBI’s plea from the Bench of Justice Sharma.
In his writ petition before the apex court, Kejriwal assailed the communication issued by the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court conveying that Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya — the master of the roster — had declined to reassign the matter on the ground that it had been allocated as per the roster.
The petition contended that the refusal to transfer the case gives rise to a “grave, bona fide and reasonable apprehension” regarding the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings.
Kejriwal has also referred to earlier instances where bail was denied to certain accused by Justice Sharma but later granted by the Supreme Court.
He has additionally filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging certain observations made by the Delhi High Court while hearing the CBI’s revision plea.
(IANS)
