Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal on Monday sought the withdrawal of a Delhi High Court judge from hearing a CBI petition in the liquor policy case, alleging apprehension of bias over her alleged participation in events organised by an RSS-linked lawyers’ body.
Appearing in person before the court, Kejriwal claimed that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had attended programmes organised by the Adhivakta Parishad, a legal body affiliated with the RSS, on four occasions. He argued that such participation raised questions of impartiality in a case involving him and other accused.
“There’s a lawyer’s body, Adhivakta Parishad. It is an ideological body of the BJP and RSS. Your honour has attended its events four times. The ideology they follow is something we strongly oppose,” Kejriwal said, adding that the case was “political” in nature.
‘Apprehension of bias’, says Kejriwal
Kejriwal contended that even an apprehension of bias was sufficient grounds for recusal, arguing that a litigant must have full confidence in judicial neutrality. “If I am from the opposite ideology, will I get justice?” he asked, referring to earlier Supreme Court observations that “perception matters” in a functioning democracy.
He further claimed selective urgency in hearing matters involving Opposition leaders and alleged that investigative agencies such as the CBI and ED had acted with political bias.
Liquor policy case background
The submissions came in connection with a CBI petition challenging a trial court order that had discharged Kejriwal and others in the Delhi excise policy case.
The trial court had earlier held that the CBI’s case was unable to withstand judicial scrutiny and “stood discredited in its entirety”, while also criticising aspects of the investigation.
Also read: Accepting Kejriwal's plea to recuse will set a bad precedent: CBI
However, the High Court had later issued notice on the CBI’s challenge, observing that certain findings of the trial court appeared prima facie erroneous and required examination.
Court hearing and submissions
Kejriwal, who described himself as not appearing as an accused, argued that earlier proceedings had already influenced perceptions in related matters, including bail hearings of co-accused.
He also questioned the pace and nature of judicial decisions in politically sensitive cases, claiming that adverse conclusions were being drawn after limited hearings.
At the end of his submissions, the court appreciated his arguments, with the judge remarking, “You argued very well. You can even become a lawyer.”
The matter is part of ongoing legal proceedings in the Delhi excise policy case involving multiple accused and parallel challenges by central investigative agencies. The court is yet to decide on the recusal plea and CBI’s challenge to the discharge order.
Follow us
