Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal has approached the Supreme Court, seeking the recusal of Delhi High Court Judge Swarna Kanta Sharma from hearing matters related to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case in the Delhi excise policy matter.
Kejriwal argued that the judge’s attendance at events organised by the advocates’ group Adhivakta Parishad, which he said is linked to ideological organisations associated with the BJP and RSS, creates a “reasonable apprehension of bias”. He claimed that in a politically sensitive case, even perception of impartiality is significant.
“Would I get justice?” Kejriwal questions
During the proceedings, Kejriwal questioned whether he would receive fair adjudication if the judge had attended events aligned with political ideologies opposed to his party. He argued that such associations could affect public confidence in judicial neutrality.
Kejriwal also argued that earlier judicial observations in related proceedings had strongly criticised the accused, suggesting that conclusions were drawn prematurely. He contended that some decisions in the excise policy case were later set aside by the Supreme Court, raising questions about consistency in judicial reasoning.
He further claimed that the High Court had acted on arguments advanced by investigating agencies, including granting reliefs or issuing directions that, according to him, went beyond formal written submissions. He also raised concerns about procedural fairness in the handling of the case.
Recusal plea under consideration
Kejriwal is seeking that Justice Sharma step aside from hearing the CBI’s appeal challenging the trial court’s decision to discharge him and other accused in the excise policy case. The matter has been argued before the Supreme Court, and proceedings on the recusal plea have been concluded.
The Delhi excise policy case continues to be politically sensitive, involving allegations of irregularities in policy formulation and implementation. The legal proceedings remain ongoing, with multiple judicial forums examining different aspects of the case.
