NEW DELHI: “Somebody asked me to recuse for the first time in my life,” said Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma while reserving order on a plea by former CM Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking recusal of the Delhi HC judge from hearing a CBI petition challenging their acquittal in the liquor case.While Kejriwal argued that the judge’s earlier orders in the liquor policy case “almost declared us guilty and corrupt”, solicitor general Tushar Mehta cautioned that allowing a plea for recusal on “unreasonable apprehension” would set a bad precedent and opposed the plea. Kejriwal said he has “reasonable apprehension of bias”. “5-10 minute ki hearing mein itna bada order (trial court’s) ‘erroneous’ declare kar diya gaya...,” he said.It was passed without hearing us, without taking our reply,” Kejriwal said, calling it a violation of natural justice.“…I have a real and reasonable apprehension that I may not get a fair hearing,” the AAP chief said, referring to earlier orders by Justice Sharma.“My case came regarding an arrest (by ED). Bail applications of Sanjay Singh, K Kavitha and Aman Dhall were also heard. The observations made by this court in those matters amount to almost judgments,” Kejriwal said.“I was almost declared guilty. I was almost declared corrupt. Kewal saza sunani baaki reh gayi thi (Only sentence was left to be pronounced).Kejriwal also cited Justice Sharma’s own 2022 order allowing the ED’s plea to change the trial court judge in a money-laundering case against AAP leader Satyender Jain.Kejriwal said on March 9, Justice Sharma recorded that certain observations and findings of the trial court prima facie appeared erroneous and needed consideration and stayed the trial court’s recommendation on departmental action against the CBI’s investigating officer in the liquor policy case.“I was shocked, and I had some apprehension about whether the court is biased and whether I will get justice. What was the urgency for this? What was the need for this?” Kejriwal asked, objecting to the stay on departmental action against the CBI official as well as the deferment of proceedings on the ED case.He also raised the issue of Justice Sharma attending four functions organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, claiming it was an ideologically linked to BJP and RSS.“The ideology they follow is something we strongly oppose, and we oppose it openly. This case is political…Your attending four times creates an apprehension in my mind — if I am from the opposite ideology, will I get justice?” he asked.As Justice Sharma asked him if she made any ideological or political statements in the events, the AAP chief said her attending these was enough.SG Mehta argued that dissatisfaction with interim observations cannot justify recusal and warned that such practices would lead to “bench hunting.”The SG also underlined that Adhivakta Parishad event was organised by the bar association and even Supreme Court and HC judges have attended it.“His (Kejriwal) bail was granted by one of the SC judges who attended Parishad events. If it is a bar association, the moot question would be, if any honourable judge is invited by the bar association to speak on the subject of law, would the judge be justified in refusing?” he countered.SG Mehta said that by “virtually maligning the bench” a litigant could seek transfer of case. He sought that the applications be dismissed with costs and “contempt action be initiated”.
