Arvind Kejriwal sought to file a rejoinder in his recusal plea, alleging bias, but faced strong objections from SG Tushar Mehta over court procedure. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma allowed it as a written statement, calling it a special indulgence, and postponed the verdict to 4:30 PM.
In a significant courtroom development, Arvind Kejriwal appeared before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to request that his rejoinder to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) response on his recusal plea affidavit be taken on record.
Kejriwal has alleged judicial bias in his plea, stating that the judge’s children are serving as panel counsel for the Central government. This raised concerns from his side regarding impartiality in the proceedings.
The matter was listed for hearing earlier today, with the bench scheduled to assemble at 11 AM. As per live updates, both Kejriwal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta joined the proceedings, and the hearing began shortly thereafter.
During the hearing, Kejriwal personally addressed the court and requested permission regarding his application.
He stated,
“Ma’am, Recusal Application.”
He further urged the court to accept his rejoinder, saying,
“Mam please take my rejoinder on record as registry is not taking it.”
Responding to this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly opposed the request and highlighted procedural limitations.
He told the court,
“On the 13th, he chose to argue the matter himself, and there was no objection from anyone. He argued for about an hour and then left after being told that the hearing would conclude that day. The judgment was reserved thereafter. Let me be clear, once a matter is reserved, courts across the country do not take any further pleadings on record.”
He further added,
“Despite this, he sought to file an additional affidavit. I anticipated this and subsequently filed written submissions. There is no procedure anywhere in the country that allows a rejoinder to written submissions. The court should treat this as it would any other litigant in similar circumstances.”
Kejriwal, however, insisted that not accepting his rejoinder would lead to injustice. He argued,
“Agar hamare rejoinder ko record p nhi liya jaaega to it will be ‘miscarriage of justice’.”
Justice Sharma responded firmly, pointing out that the court had already extended procedural flexibility to Kejriwal earlier.
She stated,
“Aapko yeh baat kehni hi nahi chahiye thi. Court ne aapke liye extra step lete hue aapka additional affidavit record par liya, khaaskar kyunki aap khud argue kar rahe the. Registry ke rules sab par equally apply hote hain—yeh koi extraordinary case nahi hai, bilkul ek normal case hai jaise doosron ke hote hain.”
She further clarified the procedural position and said,
“Maine order reserve karne ke baad bhi aapka additional affidavit on record liya. SG sahi keh rahe hain ki written submissions ka koi rejoinder nahi hota. Aap chahein toh written submissions file kar sakte the, uske liye time bhi diya gaya tha, lekin aapne nahi kiya.”
Reinforcing the importance of following uniform procedure, the judge added,
“Jo court ka procedure hai usko hum kabhi bhi ek vyaktivishesh ke liye nahi badlenge.”
However, in a significant development, Justice Sharma showed limited leniency and allowed the rejoinder to be taken on record in a different form. She stated,
“But still, since judgement aaj 2:30 pronounce hona hai. I will take your rejoinder on record as a written statement. I am giving this indulgence to Mr Kejrijwal.”
Objecting to this additional relief, Solicitor General Mehta remarked,
“No other aam aadmi would have got this extra benefit.”
Finally, the court deferred the pronouncement of the order and stated,
“I will pronounce the order at 4:30 now.”
This case highlights important procedural questions regarding filing of additional documents after a matter has been reserved for judgment, as well as issues concerning judicial recusal and fairness in high-profile litigation.
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read More On Arvind Kejriwal
