In a rare courtroom exchange, Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma told former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal that he argued so well he could think of becoming a lawyer.
The remark came on Monday during a hearing on Kejriwal’s plea seeking the judge’s recusal from hearing a CBI revision application in the excise policy case.
Kejriwal, who chose to argue his own case without engaging a lawyer, began by assuring the court that he held the judiciary in high regard. Justice Sharma responded that the respect was mutual and assured him they would focus solely on the recusal application without making it personal.
As Kejriwal listed reasons for seeking recusal, he argued in both English and Hindi. He claimed he had been “honourably discharged” and was no longer an accused. He also alleged that the speed at which the case was proceeding after it came to this bench suggested bias, especially since cases involving prominent opposition leaders were moving quickly.
The judge asked him to clarify if he was alleging political bias. Kejriwal maintained his point about the pace of the proceedings.
At one point, when Kejriwal’s lawyer tried to assist him, Justice Sharma politely stopped the advocate, saying, “You are assisting him… he is arguing very well without you.”
After Kejriwal concluded his arguments and sought permission to leave, the judge allowed it and gave her parting remark: “You argued well. Vakeel ban sakte hain aap.”
Kejriwal thanked the court and replied that he was happy with what he was doing right now.
He also pointed out that the judge had attended four events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, an organisation he described as ideologically linked to the BJP and RSS. Kejriwal said this created a “reasonable apprehension of bias” in his mind, especially since the case was political in nature.
Justice Sharma asked him to specify if he was insinuating political bias. Kejriwal maintained that the speed at which the case was moving after it came to this bench, along with the judge’s participation in those events, gave him reason to doubt whether he would get a fair hearing.
Mehta argued that dissatisfaction with interim observations cannot justify recusal. He also defended the judge’s attendance at bar association events, noting that even Supreme Court and High Court judges have participated in such programmes.
The hearing remained largely respectful despite the serious nature of the recusal plea and the sharp points raised by Kejriwal.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, also made submissions. In a lighter moment, when Hegde compared the probe agencies to “Gabbar” from the film Sholay, Justice Sharma quipped, “I wonder who I am then.”
The court reserved its order on the recusal applications filed by Kejriwal and others.
The remark came on Monday during a hearing on Kejriwal’s plea seeking the judge’s recusal from hearing a CBI revision application in the excise policy case.
Kejriwal, who chose to argue his own case without engaging a lawyer, began by assuring the court that he held the judiciary in high regard. Justice Sharma responded that the respect was mutual and assured him they would focus solely on the recusal application without making it personal.
As Kejriwal listed reasons for seeking recusal, he argued in both English and Hindi. He claimed he had been “honourably discharged” and was no longer an accused. He also alleged that the speed at which the case was proceeding after it came to this bench suggested bias, especially since cases involving prominent opposition leaders were moving quickly.
The judge asked him to clarify if he was alleging political bias. Kejriwal maintained his point about the pace of the proceedings.
At one point, when Kejriwal’s lawyer tried to assist him, Justice Sharma politely stopped the advocate, saying, “You are assisting him… he is arguing very well without you.”
After Kejriwal concluded his arguments and sought permission to leave, the judge allowed it and gave her parting remark: “You argued well. Vakeel ban sakte hain aap.”
Kejriwal thanked the court and replied that he was happy with what he was doing right now.
Kejriwal seeks recusal citing bias
During his submissions, Kejriwal raised several points to justify his demand for the judge’s recusal. He referred to earlier orders passed by Justice Sharma in the liquor policy case, claiming they “almost declared us guilty and corrupt” and that only the sentence was left to be pronounced.He also pointed out that the judge had attended four events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, an organisation he described as ideologically linked to the BJP and RSS. Kejriwal said this created a “reasonable apprehension of bias” in his mind, especially since the case was political in nature.
Justice Sharma asked him to specify if he was insinuating political bias. Kejriwal maintained that the speed at which the case was moving after it came to this bench, along with the judge’s participation in those events, gave him reason to doubt whether he would get a fair hearing.
SG Tushar Mehta opposes recusal plea
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, strongly opposed the recusal application. He cautioned that allowing recusal on “unreasonable apprehension” would set a bad precedent and could lead to “bench hunting.”Mehta argued that dissatisfaction with interim observations cannot justify recusal. He also defended the judge’s attendance at bar association events, noting that even Supreme Court and High Court judges have participated in such programmes.
The hearing remained largely respectful despite the serious nature of the recusal plea and the sharp points raised by Kejriwal.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, also made submissions. In a lighter moment, when Hegde compared the probe agencies to “Gabbar” from the film Sholay, Justice Sharma quipped, “I wonder who I am then.”
The court reserved its order on the recusal applications filed by Kejriwal and others.
