In a high-stakes legal battle at the Delhi High Court, former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Monday personally argued for the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing a CBI petition related to the Delhi liquor policy case. The hour-long submission by the AAP chief prompted a light-hearted remark from the bench, with Justice Sharma telling the former IRS officer, “You argued well. You can become a lawyer (Aap vakeel ban sakte hai).”
Kejriwal, however, maintained that he was “happy with his present calling.” The exchange added a brief moment of levity to a marathon hearing that lasted nearly five hours, eventually concluding with the court reserving its verdict on whether the judge should step away from the case.
Grounds for Recusal
The central issue of Monday’s proceedings was the CBI’s challenge against a trial court order that had discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and 21 others in the liquor policy case. Kejriwal moved an application seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal, citing concerns over perceived bias based on her previous rulings in related matters.
Addressing the court directly, Kejriwal raised several objections:
- Previous Denials of Relief: He pointed out that the judge had earlier denied his petition challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
- Adverse Findings: Kejriwal argued that the judge had made “strong and conclusive” findings in previous bail pleas of co-accused, including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha.
- Prejudgment Concerns: Expressing his apprehension, Kejriwal stated, “I was almost declared guilty. I was almost declared corrupt. Only the sentence was left to be pronounced (Kewal saza sunani baaki reh gayi thi).”
A History of Personal Submissions
This is not the first time the AAP leader has chosen to speak for himself in a courtroom. On March 28, 2024, Kejriwal famously addressed a trial judge during a custody extension hearing, questioning the material evidence used to arrest a sitting Chief Minister. Despite being represented by senior counsel on Monday, Kejriwal once again took the lead in presenting his arguments for recusal.
During the hearing, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for Manish Sisodia, jokingly urged Kejriwal “not to add to the competition” in the legal profession following the judge’s praise for his oratory skills.
Context of the CBI Petition
The legal tussle stems from a February 27 trial court order that discharged all 23 accused in the CBI’s liquor policy case. The trial judge had criticized the CBI’s investigation, stating the case was “wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny” and stood “discredited in its entirety.”
However, on March 9, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notices to the accused on the CBI’s plea against that discharge. She observed that certain findings of the trial court appeared “erroneous” and stayed the trial court’s recommendation to initiate departmental action against the CBI’s investigating officer.
The High Court will now decide if Justice Sharma will continue to hear the CBI’s challenge or if the matter will be assigned to a different bench.
