E-Paper
‘Apprehension’ of not receiving a ‘fair’ hearing in case: Kejriwal
Kejriwal said the court deferred the connected money laundering case after hearing the agency for “barely five minutes”.
Former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, along with former deputy CM Manish Sisodia and four others, on Monday faced off with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) before a bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, seeking her recusal from hearing the agency’s appeal in the Delhi excise policy case, even as the probe agency sought contempt proceedings against the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders.
After a hearing lasting over four hours, Justice Sharma reserved orders on the recusal applications. Arguing in person, Kejriwal said he had a “reasonable apprehension” of not receiving a fair hearing, pointing to what he described as a pattern of orders that effectively “neutralised” the trial court’s discharge. He said the February 27 order — passed after three months of day-to-day hearings and examination of nearly 40,000 pages — was undermined at the first hearing of the CBI’s appeal on March 9 through a “sweeping order” based on a “general petition”.
Also read | RSS events, ideology bias: What Kejriwal told HC judge Sharma in court, asking her to quit his case
“After just a five-minute hearing, this court declared it wrong, called it erroneous... when this order came, my heart sank,” Kejriwal said, adding that “most of the trial court’s order has been neutralised”.
He also alleged a pattern in justice Sharma’s orders of accepting arguments advanced by the ED and CBI. “Every prayer becomes a judgment,” he said.
Responding, Justice Sharma said, “I don’t understand this argument.”
Kejriwal said the court deferred the connected money laundering case after hearing the agency for “barely five minutes”. Calling the deferral consequential, he said: “… Had proceedings not been stayed, I would have been discharged in that too.”
Also read | CBI opposes Kejriwal’s plea seeking judge’s recusal
The submissions were opposed by the CBI, represented by solicitor general Tushar Mehta, along with additional solicitors general SV Raju and DP Singh, who urged the court to dismiss the plea with costs and initiate contempt proceedings.
The agency argued that allowing such pleas would set a dangerous precedent, enabling litigants to choose their forum based on “surmises, conjectures and unfounded apprehensions” and effectively malign the bench.
Responding to the March 9 order, the SG said it was passed after due hearing and merely deferred ED proceedings to “balance equities”, not stayed them.
Kejriwal also cited additional grounds for recusal, alleging that the judge had attended events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, which followed an ideology opposed to the AAP. The solicitor general said the ABAP was merely a bar association and that judges, including from the Supreme Court, routinely attend such events.
Kejriwal argued that in earlier proceedings, the court had made strong observations that nearly declared them “guilty” and “corrupt”, contrary to the trial court’s discharge order. On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others, holding that the CBI’s material did not disclose even a prima facie case
