‘Attended RSS-linked events four times’: Kejriwal to Delhi HC judge Swarana Kanta Sharma during recusal plea

Kejriwal had filed a plea seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the revised petition filed by CBI.

AAP national convenor and former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal on Monday personally argued a petition filed by him in connection with the Delhi excise policy case.

Kejriwal said the “apprehension of bias” was enough for a litigant to seek recusal of a judge. (ANI)

Kejriwal's plea seeks recusal of HC Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the CBI petition against a discharge order passed in favour of the AAP chief and others in the case.

The court after hearing arguments from all parties, reserved its verdict in the applications filed by Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and four others seeking recusal of Sharma.

During arguments, Kejriwal said the court had treated the accused in the case as “guilty” and “corrupt”, despite their being discharged. He further cited Justice Sharma's attendance at a BJP- and RSS-linked programmes four times, saying it “raises apprehension". He said the “apprehension of bias” was enough for a litigant to seek recusal of a judge. Citing a previous judgement ‘Ranjith Thakur v Union of India’, Kejriwal said, “It is not whether the judge is actually biased but whether litigant has an apprehension.”

The bench said that the recusal would happen only on two grounds. “The most important focus is that you are apprehending that I will not be able to do justice to you, that i am going to Adhivakta Parishad and giving them (CBI and ED) all the reliefs...” the judge said.

Kejriwal mentioned Justice Sharma's attendance at an event organised by the Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), which he said was linked to a “particular ideology".

“The ideology they follow is something we strongly oppose, and we oppose it openly. This case is political,” the former Delhi CM said. “Your attending four times creates an apprehension in my mind — whether I will get justice,” Kejriwal said to the judge.

The AAP chief also later on went to point out “the manner in which criminal revision petitions” were dealt with by the court. “The speed at which this case is proceeding, and another case as well — no other case is moving at this pace. Both these cases involve prominent opposition political parties,” he said, leading to the judge asking whether he was suggesting “political bias".

SG Mehta said the Parishad was a bar association. “If it is a bar association, the moot question would be, if any honourable judge is invited by the bar association to speak on the subject of law, would the judge be justified in refusing,” Mehta said. He also highlighted judges of Supreme Court having attended events linked to the body.

‘Observations amounted to judgements’

Kejriwal argued that five cases had earlier been brought before the Delhi High Court, including his bail application, alleging that observations made in those amounted to judgements.

“My case came regarding arrest. Bail applications of Sanjay Singh, K. Kavitha, and Aman Dhall were also heard. The observations made by this court in those matters amount to judgments,” Kejriwal stated, adding that the court was not required to give a final verdict on the reasons. “It appears the court gave a final judgement on many of those points in just two hearings,” he further said, as per Bar and Bench.

‘I was almost declared corrupt’

Kejriwal referred to Justice Sharma's judgement upholding his arrest in the excise policy case.

“It was decided and a judgment given that the amount was ‘used’ by AAP in Goa elections,” he said, adding that he was “almost declared corrupt".

“One issue that was raised concerned the approver. On this too, you gave a finding… A final finding was given on this as well…. I was almost declared guilty. Only the sentence remained to be pronounced,” he said.

Countering Kejriwal, SG Mehta said “the law required” the judge to go into the issue. He further alleged “suppression of facts”, saying, “The order of my ladyship (upholding Kejriwal's arrest), the reason to believe order passed by this bench, is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and none of them (applicants) pointed this.”

Kejriwal highlighted that the findings of the trial court, on the other hand, “were entirely contrary to those of this court". “The trial court said that the way the CBI made approvers, their conduct was aimed at proving a premeditated outcome. Ultimately, the trial court completely discharged me,” he said.

‘Court sticks to earlier findings’

The AAP national convenor said the trial court order had been given after three months of hearings.

“When my case came before you earlier, you had said that approver statements are admissible. Here, after just a five-minute hearing, you said that the trial court’s findings on the approver statements are erroneous,” he said. Kejriwal said that this was “concerning”, while submitting that the court “still strongly sticks to its earlier findings".

He further questioned the order passed by the court on March 9 “in favour of the ED".

“The order was passed without following the principles of natural justice,” Kejriwal argued, adding that it had “serious consequences” and sent a message to the public. The former Delhi CM also highlighted a “a trend” suggesting that “every single averment of the CBI and ED has been endorsed.”

‘SC granted bail due to long incarceration’: SG Mehta

Meanwhile, Solicitor General Mehta argued that the Supreme Court had granted bail to the accused on the basis of “long incarceration.” He said the HC had “fulfilled the requirement under Section 45 of PMLA.”

“This matter was carried to the SC, the Supreme Court granted bail, not because the court was not in agreement with the findings, but because of long incarceration. Only on that ground, Mr Sisodia was released,” he said.

The hearing was on at the time of filing of this report.