Arvind Kejriwal seeks the recusal of Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma from the Delhi liquor scam case hearing in the High Court. He may appear in person and has also moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the case, citing apprehension of bias.
Kejriwal Seeks Judge's Recusal
In a significant development ahead of the scheduled hearing, former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, along with several other former accused in the alleged liquor scam, has moved an application before the Delhi High Court seeking the recusal of Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma from the case.
According to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) legal team, Kejriwal may appear before the Court on April 6 and could make submissions in person during the hearing. The High Court is slated to hear a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the trial court's order discharging Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others in the Delhi excise policy case.
Recusal refers to a judge voluntarily stepping aside from a case due to a possible conflict of interest, bias, or even an apprehension of a lack of impartiality.
Arguments During Previous Hearing
On the previous date of hearing, the Delhi High Court had granted time to Kejriwal, Sisodia, and other respondents to file their replies to the CBI's plea. The matter was heard by Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, who also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) and a writ petition concerning the case are already pending before the Supreme Court. Appearing for the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that all respondents had been duly served, both in advance and after issuance of notice by the High Court. He argued that the case did not require detailed replies or rejoinders, stating that the High Court only needed to examine the trial court record and the discharge order. Describing the discharge order as an "exception order," Mehta contended that it should not remain in operation for longer than necessary.
However, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, appearing for Kejriwal, sought additional time, pointing out that the impugned order runs into nearly 500 pages and requires careful response. He also informed the Court that an SLP has already been filed before the Supreme Court, which may impact the proceedings. Opposing the request, Mehta argued that delays were causing "prejudice to the system and prejudice to the litigant." After hearing both sides, the High Court allowed time for filing replies and listed the matter for further hearing on April 6.
Petitioners Approach Supreme Court
Recently, Kejriwal, Sisodia, and other accused have also approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the proceedings from Justice Sharma's Bench. The petitions, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, raise concerns over certain observations allegedly made by the judge during earlier hearings, particularly while dealing with bail applications in the same case. The petitioners have argued that these remarks create a reasonable apprehension regarding fairness. They have also referred to the High Court's interim decision to stay trial court proceedings while hearing the CBI's appeal as a factor warranting transfer.
High Court Chief Justice's Stance
The move came after the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, declined an administrative request by Kejriwal seeking transfer of the case. The Chief Justice clarified that the matter had been assigned as per the roster and observed that any recusal decision must be taken by the concerned judge herself.
About the Delhi Excise Policy Case
The Delhi excise policy case pertains to alleged irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the now-scrapped Excise Policy 2021-22. The matter is being investigated by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate, with several AAP leaders, including Kejriwal and Sisodia, named as accused. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)