Kejriwal Argues Plea for Judge's Recusal in Delhi Excise Policy Case

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) patriarch Arvind Kejriwal appeared in person before the Delhi High Court on Monday to argue his own plea seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case. Presenting his case without legal representation, Kejriwal laid out ten grounds to support his plea. The former Delhi CM asserted that there exists a “real grave and reasonable apprehension” in his mind that he may not receive a fair hearing. He emphasised that his concerns were not about the judge’s integrity but about the perception of fairness. He added that this distinction was crucial under established legal principles. However, the court made it clear throughout the hearing that it would confine itself strictly to examining the ten grounds cited in the recusal plea. The HC added that it will not delve into the merits of the larger excise policy case at this stage. Here are the 10 grounds that Kejriwal presented in the HC during the plea: Kejriwal argued that a series of past judicial orders and courtroom observations had cumulatively created an impression of bias. He pointed to what he described as a pattern where “every single argument” of central agencies like the ED and the CBI appeared to be endorsed by the court. According to him, this trend was observed across multiple hearings and contributed significantly to his apprehension about receiving an impartial hearing. In a more contentious submission, Kejriwal raised concerns about perceived ideological proximity, referring to the judge’s attendance at events linked, according to him, to organisations associated with a particular ideology. He argued that such associations could create a reasonable apprehension of bias, especially given his party’s political stance, PTI reported. The court sought clarification on whether such events were legal or political in nature. Another key contention raised by the AAP leader was the pace at which certain proceedings were conducted. He argued that matters involving prominent political opponents were being heard with unusual speed compared to other cases. When the bench asked whether he was insinuating political bias, Kejriwal clarified that he was highlighting the perception created by such circumstances rather than making a direct allegation. Kejriwal further argued that strong judicial observations made in earlier proceedings — including remarks on alleged corruption and approver statements — could influence future hearings. He claimed that such findings gave the impression that conclusions had been reached prematurely. He further objected to what he described as relief being granted beyond formal prayers. Referring again to the March 9 order, he contended that while the petition originated from the CBI, relief impacting ED proceedings was granted based on oral submissions. Kejriwal also referred to an ex parte order passed on March 9, which he said stayed trial court proceedings without hearing all parties. He questioned the urgency behind such an intervention, noting that the same order was later described as prima facie erroneous after extended hearings. In response, the court observed that the manner in which an order is written cannot be questioned before the same bench and is a matter for a higher judicial forum. Kejriwal also flagged procedural issues, including what he termed inadequate opportunity to file replies. He expressed concern over language used in court orders, including references suggesting that parties had “chosen not to attend”, which he said was inaccurate and “a little sad”. Additionally, he questioned the stay on proceedings concerning an investigating officer, noting that the officer himself had not sought such relief. Concluding his arguments shortly before a brief recess, Kejriwal reiterated that his plea was rooted in legal precedent, not personal allegation. Citing Supreme Court judgments, he argued that even a reasonable apprehension of bias is sufficient ground for recusal. He also drew parallels with the case of fellow AAP leader Satyendar Jain, where proceedings were transferred after similar concerns were raised, seeking parity in judicial approach. The high court is currently hearing only the recusal plea and is expected to decide whether the grounds presented meet the legal threshold for reassignment of the case. (With inputs from agencies)