Delhi HC to pronounce verdict on Kejriwal’s recusal plea at 5:30 pm today
The Delhi High Court will pronounce its verdict on Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the Delhi Excise Policy case, amid arguments from the Central Bureau of Investigation over alleged bias claims
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday said it will pronounce its verdict later in the day on a plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing matters related to the alleged Delhi Excise Policy case.
Initially, the judgment was scheduled for pronouncement at 4:30 p.m., but it was later rescheduled to 5:30 p.m.
Earlier in the day, Kejriwal filed a rejoinder affidavit to the written submissions of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which the Delhi High Court took on record as part of the written submissions.
During the proceedings, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma indicated that the order would be pronounced in the evening. The plea pertains to Kejriwal’s request seeking the withdrawal of Justice Sharma from adjudicating cases arising out of the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22.
The matter assumes significance as the CBI has challenged a trial court order discharging Kejriwal and other accused, including former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, in connection with the case.
As per the causelist published on the official website of the Delhi High Court, the single-judge Bench of Justice Sharma was originally scheduled to deliver the verdict at 2:30 p.m. However, following the pre-lunch developments, the pronouncement has been deferred to the evening.
During the hearing held on April 13, Kejriwal, appearing in person, argued his application for nearly 45 minutes and contended that he is “no longer an accused” in the matter, stating that the trial court had discharged him after finding no material to frame charges.
He further submitted that a subsequent ex parte order passed by the Delhi High Court partially staying the trial court’s findings gave rise to a “grave and reasonable apprehension” in his mind regarding the likelihood of receiving a fair hearing.
“When this order came, my heart sank. I had serious doubts whether I would get justice,” Kejriwal told Justice Sharma, adding that he had also written to Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, the master of the roster, seeking transfer of the case before moving the recusal plea.
Kejriwal stressed that the principle governing recusal is based on a litigant’s reasonable apprehension of bias, and not on whether actual bias exists.
Responding to his submissions, Justice Sharma orally observed that issues concerning the manner or urgency of judicial orders cannot be examined in recusal proceedings and may instead be challenged before the Supreme Court.
Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the legal threshold for recusal is well-settled and cautioned against making allegations that could undermine the dignity of the judicial process.
“Whether we win or lose, we must remain fair to the court,” SG Mehta said.
The CBI, in its affidavit, has described the recusal pleas as “frivolous, baseless, and contumacious”, alleging that they are aimed at lowering the dignity of the court and encouraging forum shopping.
The Central probe agency contended that allegations raised by the applicants are “wholly vexatious” and do not disclose any legally sustainable ground warranting recusal, asserting that apprehension of bias must be reasonable and not imaginary.
It further argued that judicial observations made at the interim stage cannot be construed as evidence of bias and warned that accepting such pleas would set a dangerous precedent.
In additional written submissions, the CBI termed Kejriwal’s supplementary affidavit filed after the reservation of judgment as a “belated afterthought” intended to “malign institutions and exert pressure on the judiciary”.
The probe agency also refuted allegations of conflict of interest arising from the empanelment of Justice Sharma’s family members as government panel counsel, stating that acceptance of such claims would lead to an untenable situation where judges across the country would be disqualified from hearing matters involving governments.
After hearing detailed submissions from all parties, the Delhi High Court had reserved its verdict on the recusal plea and directed the parties to file brief written submissions within the stipulated timeline.
