E-Paper
RSS events, ideology bias: What Kejriwal told HC judge Sharma in court, asking her to quit his case
Kejriwal, who had filed a plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, contended that the HC had passed a “sweeping order” on March 9.
AAP national convenor and Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal on Monday highlighted his “apprehension of bias” against Delhi HC judge Swarana Kanta Sharma hearing CBI's plea against his discharge by a lower court. The high court latr reserved verdict on the recusal pleas filed by Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and four others.
Kejriwal, personally arguing his plea seeking recusal of Justice Sharma from the case, said the court had declared him and others “almost… corrupt” in earlier decisions.
He gave multiple reasons for his plea, contending that the discharge order passed by the trial court on February 27 followed three months of day-to-day hearings and examination of 40,000 pages of evidence.
He said that in contrast, the HC had passed a “sweeping order” on March 9 after hearing the CBI for only five minutes. He claimed his and others' sides were not heard.
Kejriwal also cited his “fear of ideological bias”.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the prosecution, argued that allowing such applications would set a dangerous precedent.
HC order calling trial court order ‘erroneous’
Kejriwal said that the HC during hearing on the excise policy case on March 9 had passed an order stating the trial court order as “prima facie…erroneous".
He argued, “The order that the trial court had passed after a full day of hearing, after reading 40,000 pages of documents, was declared erroneous by this court after just a five-minute hearing."
SG Mehta, meanwhile, said none of the applicants had pointed out that the “reason to believe order passed by this bench is confirmed” by the Supreme Court. “This is a clear suppression of facts. This is a constitutional court,” Mehta said.
‘Apprehension of bias’
Kejriwal said a case of recusal can be made based on “apprehension of bias.” Citing ‘Ranjith Thakur vs Union of India’, the former Delhi CM said, “They have clearly said that a judge does not have to determine whether they are actually biased; rather, if there is an apprehension of bias in the mind of a party, then there is a case for recusal.”
Kejriwal said that Justice Sharma had attended programmes organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad four times. The lawyers' body is affiliated to the RSS, which is the parent body of the Centre and Delhi's ruling BJP.
“The ideology they follow is something we strongly oppose, and we oppose it openly. This case is political,” he said. “If Your Honour is attending programmes of a particular ideology, then an apprehension arises in my mind,” he added.
When the judge interjected to ask, “[Do] you think I follow that ideology?, Kejriwal promptly asked, “Do you?” The judge said she only wanted to get his arguments on the record properly.
SG Mehta said the Adhivakta Parishad is 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,” he pointed out, according to Bar and Bench.
Court amount to judgements
The former Delhi CM further said five cases had been brought before the court of Justice Sharma, including one regarding his 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 said, according to Bar and Bench.
He said the court was not required to give a final verdict on the reasons, adding that it appeared that the court had given a “final judgement on many of those points in just two hearings".
Kejriwal further said that he was “almost declared corrupt”. However, Solicitor General Mehta said the law required Justice Sharma to delve deep into it.
Court's dealing of criminal revision petitions
Kejriwal also highlighted the manner in which the court had dealt with criminal revision petitions.
“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.
He further stated that “every single averment” made by the CBI and ED had been “endorsed” by the court. “Whenever they argue, it is accepted, and orders are passed in their favour,” Kejriwal argued.
