Kejriwal told the Delhi High Court that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has consistently ruled in favour of ED and CBI, raising serious doubts about a fair hearing. He argued that even a “reasonable apprehension of bias” is enough for recusal, citing past judgments and recent court orders.
In a significant development in the Delhi excise policy case, Arvind Kejriwal personally appeared before the Delhi High Court on Monday and argued for the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. He claimed that certain judicial orders and surrounding circumstances have created a “reasonable apprehension” in his mind that he may not receive a fair and impartial hearing.
Kejriwal submitted that Justice Sharma has consistently passed orders favouring investigating agencies like the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation in matters related to the excise policy case. He emphasized that this pattern has raised concerns about impartiality.
During the hearing, Kejriwal stated,
“Ek trend observe karne ko mil raha hai ki every single averment of CBI and ED has been endorsed (A trend can be observed that every single averment of the CBI and ED has been endorsed). Jab bhi wo argu karte hai to usko accept kar liya jaata hai aur order unke favour me pass hota hai (Whenever they argue, it is accepted, and orders are passed in their favour). Every prayer has been turned into a judgment,”
Responding to this, Justice Sharma remarked,
“This argument, I don’t understand,”
Kejriwal further alleged,
“CBI aur ED ne bola ye sab corrupt hain to court ne bola ye corrupt hain (The CBI and ED said that ‘all of them are corrupt’, and the court said ‘they are corrupt’),”
He also raised concerns about the High Court’s March 9 order, which partially stayed the trial court’s detailed discharge order delivered after months of hearings. He argued that such an important order was passed after a very short hearing.
He stated,
“5-10 minute ki hearing m trial court order jo 3 maheene ki hearing ke baad aaya tha… Aapki jo finding approvers ke baare me, jab mera case aapke saamne aaya tha, aapne bola tha ki approver ke statements addmissible hain. Yha 5 minute ki sunwai ke baad aapne bola ki trial court ki findings approvers statements erroneous hain. That was the most concerning thing for me. (Translation: In a 5–10 minute hearing, the trial court’s order—which had come after three months of hearings… Your finding about the approvers—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. That was the most concerning thing for me,”
Referring to a previous case involving Satyendar Jain, Kejriwal argued that even the apprehension of bias is sufficient for recusal. He said,
“I want to rely on Satyendar Jain v ED judgement of this court. Is case m bail ki sunwai chal rahi thi. 6 din ki sunwai ho chuki thi. Aakhri taarekh thi. Suddenly, ED has an apprehension. District Judge allows it. The matter comes to this court and the HC allows it. us case aur mere case m kaafi similiarities hain. Us case me court n kaha tha question is not about uprightness of the judge but apprehension in the mind of the litigant. Mere case bhi same hi hai. Here also question is not about the uprightness of the judge,”
He added,
“All that I am demanding is same parity as ED, especially when my apprehension is on much stronger ground,”
Explaining the legal position, Kejriwal stated,
“So the law is simple. It is not whether the judge is actually biased but whether litigant has an apprehension,”
Giving background, Kejriwal highlighted that the trial court had discharged him and 22 others on February 27, but the order was challenged by the CBI and is currently under consideration before Justice Sharma. He also pointed out that the High Court stayed parts of the trial court’s order without hearing all parties.
He argued,
“March 9 ko jab is case ki sunwai hui to CBI ke alawa koi maujud nahi tha. Ex parte, bina kisi ki sunwai kiye, pina kisi ka reply liye is court ne order pass kiya ki prima facie the order is errorneous. Jo order tiral court n pura pura din sunwai kar ke order paas kiya tha 40,000 pages ke documents padh ke us order ko is court ne 5 minute ki sunwai ke baad erroneous declare kar diya (Translation: On 9 March, when this case was heard, no one was present except the CBI. Ex parte—without hearing anyone, without taking anyone’s reply—this court passed an order stating that, prima facie, the order is erroneous. 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,”
He added emotionally,
“Jab 9 March ka order aaya to mera dil baith gaya. I had serious apprehensions about bias. Isliye maine Chief Justice ko letter likha. Chief Justice sahab ne reject kar diya. after receiving the Chief Justice’s letter maine ye application file kari (Translation: When the order of 9 March came, my heart sank. I had serious apprehensions about bias. Therefore, I wrote a letter to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice rejected it. After receiving the Chief Justice’s letter, I filed this application),”
Citing Supreme Court judgments, Kejriwal said,
“This is Ranjith Thakur v Union of India… Unhone saaf saaf kaha hai ki judge ko ye nhi dekhna hai ki wo biased nhi but agar party ke man m shanka hai bias ki to there is a case for recusal. That is why i am here before you personally. Ek meri chhoti si baat hai ki mere mind m jo apprehension hai that is between me and the court. CBI should not be made a party in this case (Translation: 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. That is why I am here before you personally. I have a small submission—that the apprehension in my mind is a matter between me and the court. The CBI should not be made a party in this case),”
He further stated,
“Is court ke saamne 5 pehle cases aa chuke hain. Mera case aaya tha arrest ko. Sanjay Singh, K Kavitha and Aman Dhall ke bail applications aaye the. Unme is court n jo observations diye the, they amount to judgements.(Translation: Five earlier cases have already come before this court. 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 argued that the court had gone beyond what was necessary and said,
“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 hearing. Do hearings m final judgement kar diya gaya (It was decided as a final judgment in two hearings). Ek issue utha tha approver ka. Iske upar aapki finding hai… Ispe bhi ek final finding de di gayi thi. I was almost declared corrupt. I was almost declared guilty. Bas saza sunani reh gayi thi. (Translation: 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 corrupt. I was almost declared guilty. Only the sentence remained to be pronounced),”
Justice Sharma responded briefly,
“I don’t want to comment. That’s what you think,”
Also Read: Probe Against Manish Sisodia & Satyendar Jain | President Droupadi Murmu Grants Sanction
Kejriwal then compared the High Court’s findings with the trial court’s conclusions, stating,
“The trial court has said there was no corruption, kickbacks, bribery. Koi Goa me paisa nhi le jaaya gaya. Jo recovery pe aapki finding hai uspe court ne likha hai…(Translation: No money was taken to Goa. On the issue of recovery, the finding you gave—on that, the court has written…),”
Justice Sharma clarified the scope of the hearing, saying,
“Aapki submission kya hai? Kyunki trial court ne maine bola hai usko galat declare kiya hai…Jis waqt maine faisla kiya us time is court (trial court) ka to faisla tha nahi. Uspe (trial court) ke order p ham tab jaaega jab wo decide karenge. Aaj ham sirf aapko recusal pe sun rahe hain (Translation: What is your submission? Because trial court has declared what I had earlier found as wrong… At the time when I made the decision, there was no order of this court (trial court). We will go into the trial court’s order when they decide it. Today, we are only hearing you on the issue of recusal),”
Kejriwal replied,
“Trial court ne bola jis tarah CBI ne approvers banaye unka conduct was to prove a premeditated outcome. Finally, the trial court discharged me completely with completely contrary findings to this court to isliye man me ek shanka hai.(Translation: 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, with findings that were entirely contrary to those of this court. Therefore, there is an apprehension in my mind),”
He also referred to the case of Manish Sisodia and said,
“He (Sisodia) was declared guilty which was not necessary. There was one paragraph jaha pe kaha gaya ki ye saare log corrupt hai. Aesa laga ki hame sirf corrupt hi nahi maha corrupt declare kiya gaya (Translation: There was one paragraph where it was said that all these people are corrupt. It felt as if we were not just declared corrupt, but extremely corrupt),”
He added,
“Iss case me bas 3 hearing hui thi and a conclusion was drawn that Manish (Sisodia) is a very corrupt person (In this case, there were only three hearings, and a conclusion was drawn that Manish Sisodia is a very corrupt person). This case was set aside by the Supreme Court,”
Opposing this claim, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said,
“It was not set aside,”
Kejriwal continued,
“Trial court ne Manish Sisodia ko puri tarah nirdosh paya. This shows that this court is totally committed to facts. To ab question ye hai ki kya is stage pe aa ke ye court badal paaega? (Translation: The trial court found Manish Sisodia completely innocent. This shows that the trial court is fully committed to the facts. So now the question is whether, at this stage, this court will be able to change its stance?),”
He further argued,
“Kejriwal: CBI ka pura case sirf approver statements pe hai. 9 March ke order me aapne agar un statements pe question khada kar diya to practically you have rejected the entire trial court order (Translation: The CBI’s entire case is based only on approver statements. In the 9 March order, if you have raised doubts about those statements, then practically you have rejected the entire trial court order),”
Questioning the urgency, he said,
“Us din [March 9] aapke saamne trial court ka record bhi nhi tha. What was the need or urgency [for this order]? Uski wajah se ek shanka paida hui (Translation: On that day [March 9], even the trial court record was not before you. What was the need or urgency for this order? Because of it, an apprehension arose),”
Justice Sharma responded firmly,
“Ye toh aap question nai kar skte ki kya need thi. Ye aap mujhe mat batao maine order kaise likha ye aap Supreme Court ko bataoge (Translation: You cannot question what the need was. Don’t tell me how I wrote the order—you can tell that to the Supreme Court),”
Kejriwal also said,
“Trial court ke remarks were not against CBI. They were against the CBI Investigating Officer. He is not a party. He has not petitioned the court. CBI has come. CBI ke kehne pe IO ki proceedings ko rok dena bohot gehri shanka paida karta hai ( Translation: The CBI has come, and on its request, staying the proceedings against the Investigating Officer creates a deep apprehension),”
He added,
“Hame bina sune the order was partly stayed (Without hearing us, the order was partly stayed). In my view, this is violation of the SC order. So it appears that most of the trial court order is mostly neutralised by the March 9 order,”
Raising concerns about the pace of proceedings, he said,
“Aapne apne order [March 9 order] me ye bhi likha that there was advance service hui thi, but we did not appear. In March 16, you have written we chose not to appear. Madam isse takleef hui. Ye case 4 saal se chal raha hai aur hum aapke saamne hain. The language used by this court also indicated a bias (Translation: In your order [the March 9 order], you also wrote that there had been advance service, but we did not appear. On March 16, you wrote that we chose not to appear. Madam, that caused distress. This case has been going on for four years, and we have been appearing before you. The language used by this court also indicated a bias,”
He further argued,
“We have analysed the way criminal revision petitions have been dealt with by this case. The speed at which this case is going and another case is going is speed se koi aur case nhi chal raha. ye dono case sabse prominent opposition political parties ke hain (Translation: We have analyzed the manner in which criminal revision petitions have been dealt with in this 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),”
Justice Sharma asked,
“Toh aap political bias bhi bol rahe hain? (Translation: So are you also alleging political bias)?”
Kejriwal also criticized the CBI’s appeal, stating,
“February 27 ko trial court ka order aaya. 4 ghante me CBI ne is court m appeal file kar di this. 500 page se zyada ki judgment hain. Court ne ek ek charge ko examine kiya hai aur fir detailed finding di hai. CBI ki appeal m kisi bhi finding ko le ke koi finding nhi hai. Is appeal ko pehle din hi dismiss kar dena chahiye tha. Wo defective hai. Us defective petition pe ek sweeping order paas kiya gaya (Translation: On 27 February, the trial court’s order was delivered. Within four hours, the CBI filed an appeal before this court. It is a judgment of more than 500 pages. The trial court examined each and every charge and then gave detailed findings. In the CBI’s appeal, there is no finding addressing any of those findings. This appeal should have been dismissed on the very first day. It is defective. Yet, on that defective petition, a sweeping order was passed,”
He further referred to Justice Sharma attending events organised by an RSS-affiliated body and said,
“Ek sangathan hain Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parisdha. Unke event ko your honour (the judge presiding) 4 baar attend kar ke aai thi. Unki jo ideology hain ham uske sakht khilaaf hain aur khul ke khilaaf hain. Ye case political hai (Translation: There is an organization, the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad. Your Honour (the presiding judge) has attended its events four times. The ideology they follow is something we strongly oppose, and we oppose it openly. This case is political,”
He added,
“If your honour is attending the programme of a particular ideology, then ek mere mind me apprehension paida hota hai (Translation: If Your Honour is attending programs of a particular ideology, then an apprehension arises in my mind,”
Justice Sharma asked,
“Ki main us ideology ko follow karti hu? (Translation: That I follow that ideology?)”
Kejriwal replied,
“Aapke 4 baar jaane se mere mind m apprehension paida hota hai ki will I get justice (Translation: Your attending four times creates an apprehension in my mind—whether I will get justice),”
He also referred to a statement by Amit Shah and said,
“Abhi thode din pehle Home Minister Amit Shah ne ek statement diya ki HC se jo judgement aaega uske baad Kejriwal ko SC jaana padega (Translation: A few days ago, Home Minister Amit Shah made a statement that after the High Court’s judgment, Kejriwal would have to go to the Supreme Court,”
Solicitor General Mehta objected,
“There is no pleading to that effect,”
The Bench responded,
“What control I have over what someone says?,”
Concluding his arguments, Kejriwal stated,
“Ek old tradition thi ki judges ke near or dear ones agar kisi party se related hote the to wo judges us case se recuse kar jaate the (Translation: There used to be an old tradition that if a judge’s near or dear ones were connected to a party, the judge would recuse themselves from that case),”
The matter remains under consideration before the Delhi High Court, and further developments are awaited.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Arvind Kejriwal
