A fresh twist emerged in the Delhi excise policy case on Monday as Aam Aadmi Party national convenor and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal personally appeared before the Delhi High Court and presented arguments in support of his petition.
During the hearing, Kejriwal requested that Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma step aside from the matter and that the case be transferred to another bench.
Why Kejriwal Moved the Plea
In his petition, Kejriwal sought reassignment of the proceedings related to the Central Bureau of Investigation challenge against the discharge relief granted to him and other accused persons.
He argued that earlier court observations appeared to presume guilt, with references suggesting the accused were “corrupt” or responsible, despite the trial court having granted relief.
Concerns Over Fair Hearing
Kejriwal also submitted that certain public appearances of the judge had raised concerns in his mind regarding the perception of impartiality. He told the court that even a reasonable apprehension about fairness can be a valid ground for seeking reconsideration of the bench hearing the case.
Court’s Observation
The bench, however, noted that recusal requests must be backed by strong legal grounds. It observed that judges cannot withdraw from matters solely on the basis of suspicion, as such a practice could disrupt the judicial system.
CBI’s Response
Representing the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the outcome of the matter would carry wider implications. He argued that if judges repeatedly recuse themselves in sensitive cases on similar requests, it could create difficulties for future hearings.
He further stated that earlier judicial remarks and orders should be viewed within the legal context in which they were made.
Trial Court vs High Court Context
Kejriwal also highlighted the contrast between the findings of the trial court and earlier observations made during higher court proceedings. According to him, while the trial court granted relief, previous remarks from the High Court had been more critical.
Hearing Continues
The matter was still being heard at the time of filing this report, and all eyes are now on the court’s final decision.
