AAP national convenor and former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal on Monday personally argued a petition filed by him in connection with the Delhi excise policy case.
Kejriwal’s plea seeks recusal of HC Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the CBI petition against a discharge order passed in favour of the AAP chief and others in the case.
During arguments, Kejriwal said the court had treated the accused in the case as “guilty” and “corrupt”, despite their being discharged. He further cited Justice Sharma’s attendance at a BJP- and RSS-linked programmes four times, saying it “raises apprehension”.
He said the “apprehension of bias” was enough for a litigant to seek recusal of a judge. Citing a previous judgement ‘Ranjith Thakur v Union of India’, Kejriwal said, “It is not whether the judge is actually biased but whether litigant has an apprehension.”
Kejriwal cites Justice Sharma’s attendance at RSS-linked event
Kejriwal mentioned Justice Sharma’s attendance at an event organised by the Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), which he said was linked to a “particular ideology”.
“The ideology they follow is something we strongly oppose, and we oppose it openly. This case is political,” the former Delhi CM said.
“Your attending four times creates an apprehension in my mind — whether I will get justice,” Kejriwal said to the judge.
The AAP chief also later on went to point out “the manner in which criminal revision petitions” were dealt with by the 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,” he said, leading to the judge asking whether he was suggesting “political bias”.
‘Observations amounted to judgements’
Kejriwal argued that five cases had earlier been brought before the Delhi High Court, including his bail application, alleging that observations made in those amounted to judgements.
“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 stated, adding that 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 hearings,” he further said, as per Bar and Bench.
‘I was almost declared corrupt’
Kejriwal referred to Justice Sharma’s judgement upholding his arrest in the excise policy case.
“It was decided and a judgment given that the amount was ‘used’ by AAP in Goa elections,” he said, adding that he was “almost declared corrupt”.
“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 guilty. Only the sentence remained to be pronounced,” he said.
Kejriwal highlighted that the findings of the trial court, on the other hand, “were entirely contrary to those of this court”.
“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,” he said.
‘Court sticks to earlier findings’
The AAP national convenor said the trial court order had been given after three months of hearings.
“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,” he said. Kejriwal said that this was “concerning”, while submitting that the court “still strongly sticks to its earlier findings”.
He further questioned the order passed by the court on March 9 “in favour of the ED”.
“The order was passed without following the principles of natural justice,” Kejriwal argued, adding that it had “serious consequences” and sent a message to the public.
The former Delhi CM also highlighted a “a trend” suggesting that “every single averment of the CBI and ED has been endorsed”: “Whenever they argue, it is accepted, and orders are passed in their favour.”
The hearing was on at the time of filing of this report.
