New Delhi, April 6 Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal appeared in person in the Delhi High Court on Monday, seeking Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma's recusal from hearing the CBI petition challenging the discharge of the AAP convenor and other accused in the liquor policy case.
Justice Sharma accepted Kejriwal's application for recusal and listed it for hearing on April 13, after being informed that a plea for transfer of the case to another High Court bench filed before the Supreme Court had been withdrawn.
The court also noted that, besides Kejriwal, applications for recusal were also filed by AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak.
The court granted Kejriwal and others until April 10 to file their response to the main CBI plea as a "final opportunity".
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, argued that the court was not a forum for theatrics and that Kejriwal should consult with his lawyer if he wished to appear in the case.
This is not the first instance of the AAP leader himself making submissions in a court proceeding.
On March 28, 2024, when the trial court extended Kejriwal's custody with the Enforcement Directorate in the related case, he directly addressed the trial judge, questioning whether there was sufficient evidence to arrest a sitting Chief Minister. The trial judge allowed him to make verbal submissions despite being represented by a senior counsel.
On Monday, Mehta strongly objected to the recusal application, stating that Kejriwal's allegations against the "institution" were frivolous and contemptuous.
"Some people in this country make a career out of making baseless allegations against everyone. That must be taken seriously. This is an allegation against the institution, and we must support that institution," Mehta said.
He also informed that seven of the discharged accused had filed applications seeking the judge's recusal as part of a "well-thought-out strategy".
"If anyone else wants to file the application, please do so, so that I can decide it once and for all," Justice Sharma said.
Kejriwal asserted that he would argue the recusal application himself and would exercise his "legal rights" regarding 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 file it electronically on the High Court portal.
Mehta said the agency's response to the recusal application was ready in the form of a note.
He contended that, as he had "predicted", the pleas filed by Kejriwal in the Supreme Court regarding the present proceedings were still pending with the top court's registry.
Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for one of the respondents, informed the court that the petition filed in the Supreme Court for the transfer of the case to another judge had been withdrawn.
Later in the order, the court observed that some of the respondents were yet to file their replies on the main CBI petition despite seeking time to do so on two occasions.
As a "final and last opportunity", the court granted time until April 10 to Kejriwal and others to file their response.
The court clarified that if the respondents fail to file the reply by then, the option to file it shall stand closed.
The order also recorded that, besides Kejriwal, applications for recusal of the judge were also filed by AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak. Other respondents, including Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai, have also filed similar applications seeking recusal, the court added.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others and criticised the CBI, stating that its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
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, D K 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, along with AAP leader Manish Sisodia, along with other accused in the excise 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.