Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Monday sought the recusal of Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma from hearing the excise policy case, arguing that the legal test is not actual bias but whether parties have a reasonable apprehension of not getting a fair trial. The plea came during proceedings on the CBI’s challenge to the trial court order that had discharged Kejriwal and others.
Kejriwal submitted that in earlier orders, the bench had “almost convicted” him, leaving only the sentence pending, and therefore the judge should step aside. Justice Sharma responded that this was the first time someone had asked her to recuse herself. She added that she had studied the matter extensively and hoped to deliver a sound verdict. The court reserved its order.
During the hearing, Kejriwal argued that after three months of continuous hearings, the trial court had discharged the accused, but the order was set aside within minutes on March 9 without hearing them. He also said the trial court’s observations were termed incorrect and proposed action against the investigating officer was halted. He added that while the petition was filed by the CBI, the proceedings involving the ED were also affected.
Justice Sharma clarified that the present hearing was limited to the request for change of judge and said issues relating to how the earlier order was written could be raised before the Supreme Court.
Kejriwal further pointed to Justice Sharma’s participation in events organised by a judges’ and advocates’ body which, he claimed, was associated with a particular ideological leaning. Justice Sharma questioned whether any political or ideological statement had been made at such events. Kejriwal responded that he was not alleging bias but said repeated participation created an impression that he might not get justice.
Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that judges attending legal events cannot be treated as ideological alignment. He termed the petition an attempt to pressure the judiciary and sought its dismissal with costs, along with initiation of contempt proceedings.
Senior advocate Rebecca John Farasat (for the defence) submitted that requests for change of judge in criminal cases are sensitive, as personal liberty is at stake. The court reserved its order.
