AAP said Arvind Kejriwal will appear before the Delhi High Court today seeking acceptance of his affidavits filed in response to CBI. The party said his response is not taken on record, questioning, “Why are responses not recorded?”
AAP said that Arvind Kejriwal, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convenor, is expected to appear before the Delhi High Court today to ask that the affidavits he filed in response to the CBI’s submissions be taken on record.
In a statement on Sunday, the party said,
“Arvind Kejriwal has filed his response to the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI’s) affidavit but it is not being accepted on record. Kejriwal will request that his response be taken on record. Why are our responses not being recorded again and again,”
AAP said that on April 16, Kejriwal filed an additional affidavit, again urging the court to seek Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s recusal from hearing the CBI’s appeal related to the excise policy case.
The affidavit, AAP claimed, argued that the judge’s children were empanelled with the Centre and that Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, who represents the CBI in the appeal, allocates cases to them. The court, AAP said, agreed to admit the document into the record.
Kejriwal and the other former accused in the excise policy case initially filed their recusal petition on April 5.
AAP leader Saurabh Bharadwaj said in the same statement that Kejriwal had earlier tried to submit an affidavit related to the judge’s children. However, Bharadwaj alleged that it was not accepted. He said Kejriwal then had to personally appear before the court and request that it be taken on record.
Bharadwaj added that as the CBI has now filed its response to Kejriwal’s affidavit, Kejriwal wanted to file a rejoinder, but AAP claimed that even this was not being accepted on record.
Unfortunately, even that is not being accepted on record.” he added in a post on X.
There was no immediate response from the BJP.
Earlier, on February 27, a trial court discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and 21 others in the excise policy case, holding that the CBI’s material did not show a prima facie case. The CBI subsequently challenged this order before the High Court.
Additionally, On March 9, Justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental action against a CBI officer, stating that the remarks were prima facie misconceived, and also deferred ED proceedings. Kejriwal then moved for a transfer of the case on March 11, but the request was rejected on March 13.
Kejriwal, along with Sisodia and four others, then sought Justice Sharma’s recusal. The court reserved its order on Monday, and Kejriwal filed an additional affidavit the next day, which AAP said was taken on record on Thursday.
The CBI opposed Kejriwal’s recusal request, arguing that accepting the allegations would create a precedent that could potentially disqualify judges nationwide from hearing cases involving governments or political figures.
In its written submissions responding to Kejriwal’s additional affidavit bAAP alleged that the judge’s children are on a government panel and receive work from the law officer handling the matter the agency also argued that such a view could likewise affect law officers who assign cases to panel lawyers appearing before those judges.