New Delhi

Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Monday urged the Delhi High Court to recuse Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the CBI’s appeal in the excise policy case, citing a “reasonable apprehension” of not receiving a fair hearing.

Appearing in person, Kejriwal clarified that he was not questioning the court’s integrity but argued that even a perceived likelihood of bias is sufficient under law to seek recusal. He said his plea rests on multiple grounds and is based on perception rather than proof of actual bias.

Kejriwal contended that certain observations made by the court in related proceedings were “very strong” and appeared to carry the weight of final conclusions. Referring to earlier hearings involving co-accused, he argued that such remarks could influence the present proceedings. “The question is whether those earlier views continue to weigh on the court’s mind,” he submitted.

He also cited the trial court’s discharge order, which followed extensive hearings and found no evidence of an offence, bribery, or proceeds of crime, while questioning the credibility of approver statements. Kejriwal argued that the High Court’s interim order of March 9, passed without hearing all parties, effectively weakened those findings. “What was the urgency for such an order?” he asked, saying it raised serious concerns.

He further submitted that discharge orders should not be stayed lightly, citing Supreme Court precedent, and claimed that the partial stay in this case diluted the trial court’s conclusions. Raising concerns about the pace of proceedings, he said his matter was being heard unusually quickly compared to other criminal revision cases, including those involving opposition leaders.

Seeking parity, Kejriwal pointed to instances where courts had accepted recusal pleas based solely on apprehension. “I am only asking for the same standard,” he said, asserting that his concerns were on a “stronger footing.”

He emphasised that the application was limited to a procedural issue and did not concern the merits of the case, describing recusal as a matter strictly between the court and the litigant.

The High Court indicated that it would confine the hearing to the recusal plea and the grounds cited, noting that issues related to the merits of the trial court’s order would be addressed separately.

Opposing the application, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, described the plea as “frivolous, vexatious and baseless,” arguing that it was based on conjecture and sought to undermine the judicial process. He said dissatisfaction with interim observations cannot justify recusal and cautioned that allowing such pleas could lead to “bench hunting.”

The CBI maintained that interim observations are tentative in nature and do not indicate bias. It defended the March 9 order, stating that courts are empowered to issue interim directions based on available material, even before examining the full trial court record.

The agency also argued that legal notice served through counsel is valid and that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) can continue unless there is a final acquittal in the predicate offence. It denied any undue haste, citing the need for timely adjudication in cases involving public representatives, and urged the court to dismiss the plea with costs.

The High Court is currently hearing the CBI’s challenge to the trial court’s discharge of Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and others in the Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22 case.

Earlier, the Chief Justice had declined a request to transfer the matter, leaving the issue of recusal to be decided by the same bench.

The case relates to alleged irregularities in the now-scrapped excise policy, which continues to be under investigation by central agencies, with several AAP leaders named as accused.

READ MORE: Ayesha Tabassum’s journey from breaking news to building narratives

Meanwhile, Kejriwal, who arrived at the Delhi High Court earlier in the day for the hearing, declined to comment on the matter outside the courtroom, saying, “I will speak only before the court. The matter is sub judice.”