Top News

Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Monday argued in the Delhi High Court that “just your presence at that programme raises suspicion, suggesting there could be bias,” as he pressed for the recusal of Justice Swarnakanta from hearing his case.

The hearing in the Delhi excise policy case commenced amid heightened security at the Delhi High Court, with Delhi Police and paramilitary forces deployed.

Kejriwal appeared in court and chose to argue his case himself, without legal representation. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S V Raju were present in the courtroom.

At the outset, the court clarified that it would only hear the recusal application. “We will come directly to the recusal issue. I have read the file,” the judge said.

Judge’s Participation In Adhivakta Parishad Events

Kejriwal questioned the judge’s participation in meetings of the Adhivakta Parishad, stating she had attended such events four times.

He argued that the organisation’s ideology was opposed to his own and said, “Just your presence at that programme raises suspicion, suggesting there could be bias.”

The court responded, “You did not provide the link of that programme in your application. My question is — when I attended that programme, did I express any ideological or political views, or was it merely a legal event?”

Kejriwal replied that the mere attendance itself created doubt.

Reference To Tradition Of Recusal

Citing established practice, Kejriwal said, “There is an old convention that if a judge’s close relatives are associated with a political party or the ruling party, the judge recuses themselves from the hearing.”

He added that the issue was not about the judge’s integrity, but about the apprehension of the litigant. “The question is not the judge’s honesty, but the party’s own apprehension.”

Challenge To CBI Appeal And Court Proceedings

Kejriwal questioned the speed at which the CBI filed its appeal against the trial court order dated February 27.

“The trial court delivered a 500-page judgment after examining every allegation in detail. But the CBI filed an appeal within just four hours. It is not possible to properly read and understand such a large judgment in such a short time,” he said.

He argued that the appeal did not challenge any specific findings of the trial court and was therefore “defective” and should have been dismissed at the outset.

Despite this, he said, the High Court passed a “detailed order” on the petition.

Allegations Of Uneven Judicial Speed

Kejriwal also raised concerns over the pace of proceedings, stating that cases involving opposition leaders were being heard more swiftly than others.

When the judge asked, “So are you suggesting that I am politically biased?”, Kejriwal pointed to earlier observations made during his arrest, where the court had said that an approver’s statement was admissible.

He added that the trial court had since dismissed the case, yet an order was passed without hearing all parties, which he said reflected bias.

Trial Court Findings Vs High Court Observations

Referring to the trial court’s verdict, Kejriwal said it had found no corruption, no bribery, and no transfer of money to Goa.

He argued that several observations made earlier by the High Court stood contradicted by the trial court’s findings.

“The trial court has already given its findings on the issue of money being used in the Goa elections. There was also an issue of the approver. On that, you had given findings. I was almost declared corrupt, almost declared guilty — only the sentence remained,” he said.

The court responded that it would not comment on this, adding that it was “just your perception”.

The judge also noted that when earlier observations were made, the trial court’s verdict had not yet been delivered, and that the High Court would examine the lower court’s findings going forward.

Concerns Over Ex Parte Order

Kejriwal said the first hearing in the High Court took place on March 9, when only the CBI was present.

“Without hearing all parties, this court passed an ex parte order without issuing notice,” he said, adding that the trial court had conducted daily hearings over three months, while the High Court had prima facie termed the judgment incorrect within minutes.

Economic And Procedural Concerns Raised

Kejriwal argued that the High Court may not be able to revisit earlier observations at this stage, especially since the trial court had already rejected the CBI’s theory.

He reiterated that there were no proceeds of crime and no money trail to Goa, as established by the trial court.

CBI Should Not Be Party To Recusal Plea: Kejriwal

Kejriwal also objected to the CBI being made a party to his recusal application.

“This is a matter between the court and the party. The CBI has no locus in this,” he said.

Letter To Chief Justice And Recusal Plea

Kejriwal said he had written to the Chief Justice requesting that the case be transferred to another bench after he developed doubts about receiving a fair hearing.

“When this order came, my heart sank. I began to doubt whether the court was biased and whether I would get justice here,” he said.

Solicitor General Opposes Recusal

Responding to the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, said that the standard for deciding recusal applications rests at the highest level, including the Chief Justice.

He said the court was required to consider the issues raised by Kejriwal, and failing to do so would have rendered the order legally flawed.

“We may win or lose, but we must remain fair to the court,” Mehta said.

Warning Against ‘Bench Hunting’

Mehta cautioned against allowing recusal on the basis of allegations.

“It is very easy to say that the matter should be transferred to another judge, but one must consider the precedent it sets,” he said.

“This would create a situation where, based on speculation and by almost maligning a judge, a litigant could choose a bench of their preference.”

He added that the issue was not whether the judge could hear the case, but whether any judge would be able to hear such matters if recusal were allowed on such grounds.

‘Ecosystem At Work’, Says SG

Mehta further argued that the case went beyond a “simple error”.

“I will show that this is not just a matter of error. An entire ecosystem is at work,” he said, adding that both the CBI and the court must resist any attempt to create pressure on the judiciary.