Attended Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad's Event: Kejriwal Personally Argues Seeking Recusal Of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma

The High Court was hearing an application filed by Arvind Kejriwal seeking recusal of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma in the present case. The Court asked Arvind Kejriwal whether he would argue the matter on his own, to which he replied positively.

Justice Sharma said, "I will allow the application."

Kejriwal said, "So can I start?"

Justice Sharma replied, "Yes, yes."

Kejriwal said, "Mai aapka aabhari hu ki aapne meri application argue krne ka mauka diya...mai Court ki respect krta hu...Aaj mai accused ki haisiyat se nahj khada. I have been discharged. Mai ek do lines order me se padhna chahunga." (He then read from the impugned order.)

Justice Sharma said, "Abhi hum keval recusal sun rahe hain...aap uspr hi boliye."

Kejriwal then reiterated the hearings taken place before the Court in the present matter.

Kejriwal submitted, "March 9 ko jab sunvayi hui is court me CBI ke alava koi aur party yaha maujood nahi thi. Sab parties ke gair maujoogi me, ex parte, bina notice jaari kiye, bina reply kiye...this court passed an order...Jab trial court ne 3 November se February ke beech me daily basis pe sunwayi krke order pass kara tha, usko 5 min ki sunwayi ne is court ne prima facie galat declare kar diya...Jab ye order aaya, tb mera dil baith gaya. I had doubts about whether this Hon'ble Court is biased and whether I will get justice here. This is why I wrote to the Chief Justice that the case may be transferred to any other Bench. Then I filed this application...Unhone kaha hain judge ka bias hona zaroori nahi hain lekin agar party ke mind me reasonable doubt hai, then it is a case of recusal. I have apprehension in my mind. Meri choti si objection hai. Meri apprehension aur ye recusal application is between the court and the party. CBI has no locus in this. CBI should not be made a party."

He then submitted that the bias is between my mind and the Court, and therefore, the CBI has no locus in this. Therefore, the CBI should not be made a party in this.

He mentioned the judgment in the Satyendar Jain Case. He said, "Satyendar Jain case me 18 ghante sunwayi ho chuki thi...6 din tak. Tab tak ED ko koi apprehension nai hua. Aakhri tareekh pe suddenly apprehension hua, matter was transferred. This court heard the matter and granted judgment in ED's favour. Us case me aur mere case me bahut saari similarities hain. The question is not of the integrity of the judge; the question is the apprehension in the mind of the party. In that case, this court relied on the SC judgment...I am only requesting the same parity as ED, especially when my apprehensions are on much stronger ground...Law is simple. It is whether apprehension…here exists in my mind a real, grave, and reasonable apprehension that this petition will not get a fair hearing. Mere 10 grounds hai."

He then submitted with various judgments regarding the issue 'What is reasonable apprehension?'

He added, "Is court ke samne 5 pehle cases aa chuke hain, mera case aya tha whether my arrest was legal. Baaki bails thi. Iss court ki observations almost amounted to judgments. Mera case jo tha, it was related to illegal arrest. In the limited matter court had to decide whether IO has reasons to believe. Court was not required to put weight behind reasons or give a final verdict. It appears the Court gave a final judgment in just two hearings."

He then referred to various paragraphs from the earlier judgment passed by Justice Sharma upholding his arrest. Kejriwal said, "I was almost declared guilty in the matter, I was already declared corrupt...trial court ke orders iss point pe completely contrary hain. It has been concluded that no crime took place, no bribery, no proceeds of crime. Koi Goa me paisa nahi le jaya gaya. Recovery par jo apki finding thi ispe trial court ne bola…."

Justice Sharma said, "Aapka argument kya hain? Trial Court ne mere baad suna hain. Mai sirf apko application pr sun rahi hu….Mai sirf recusal par sun rahi hu. Abhi tak apne theek argument kara hain. Jis waqt mene wo order kara, unka faisla baad me aya...aaj hum keval aapke ten points par concentrate karenge. Mene teen points likhwaye hain..."

Kejriwal said, "But mera first point hi chal raha hai."

Court said, "Aapke leye first point hoga...mere leye teen ho gya hai...ese nhi hota hai...Mai apni tarah se court chalati hu. Maine note kar liya hain."

He also referred to and read the judgment passed by Justice Sharma in the Manish Sisodia case.

"It was pronounced and announced that he was guilty, which was not required at that time...humein kewal corrupt nahi but maha corrupt declare kia gya tha...", he added.

"He(Manish Sisodia) got bail finally. Trial court ne Sisodia ko puri tarah se nirdosh paya...Kya iss stage pr aake ye court apni opinions badal paaega?", he added.

He further added that the whole case of the ED and CBI is based on approver's statements and the Court, in its previous judgments, has passed findings regarding approver's statements in favour of the ED and the CBI. He added that the trial court's findings were completely contrary to the findings of this Court. Therefore, he has reasonable apprehensions regarding the bias of the Court.

Kejriwal added, "This gives serious doubt that previous observations are weighing very heavily in the Court’s mind. It shows that the court still strongly sticks to its earlier findings. 9 March ko kewal CBI ki ek petition thi aur trial court ka order tha. Trial court ka record bhi nahi tha. Is order ki zaroort kya thi?...What was the need or urgency for this? Uski wajah se ek shanka paida hui mere mind me."

"Aaj bhi mai ED ke case me ek accused ki tarah khada hu. Ek message ye gaya iss stay (stay order) ke bad ki ED ki proceedings ko pending rakho...abhi discharge wale order ko reverse kar ke bhej rahe hain aapke paas", he submitted.

"Reason No. 4: Proceedings with respect to IO were also stayed...IO khud yaha nahi aaye...wo party bhi nahi hai...", he added.

Regarding the order passed by the Court in the present matter, he said, "6 March ke order me likha hai “They chose not to attend”...Hume koi service nahi hui. Isse padhke thoda dukh hua."

Kejriwal then submitted that he has seen the roster of the Court and analysed it. "Koi aur case is speed se nahi chal rha hain. Ye dono cases, sabse prominent political opponents ke hain", he said.

"So you are insinuating political bias?...", Justice Sharma remarked. 

"He also states that he has noticed a trend of this court that while passing orders in the cases against him, this court has endorsed the arguments of CBI and has granted all the prayers sought by the CBI...", the Court added the submission by Kejriwal in its order as it was recording the submissions simultaneously.

Kejriwal also submitted that within four hours of the judgment passed by the Trial Court, the ED filed a very basic revision petition, and the Court granted interim relief in the matter.

He then said, "This court has been endorsing everything CBI has been saying.”

Kejriwal submitted, "Reason 9: Ek body hain, adhivakta parishad. RSS ka hain. Unki body me your honour 4 baar attend karke aayi thi...aapke 4 baar jaane se mere mind me apprehension paida hota hai."

"This court has attended Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Parishad, which follows some ideology...opposite to his ideologies, which has raised apprehensions whether he will get some justice...on being asked whether this Court had gone to that program for legal profession or whether I had made a political statement or ideological statement or was it a legal program?...to which he answered that mere fact that court had gone and attend program gives rise to suspicion.", Justice Sharma recorded in her order.

Kejriwal then submitted, "Abhi Home Minister Shri Amit Shah ne ek statement diya tha ki jo High Court ka order aega uske against unko Supreme Court jana hi pdega."

Justice Sharma said, "What control I have over what he or you say?...I do not even know him."

Accordingly, Kejriwal concluded his arguments.

Background

Previously, the High Court issued notice to the CBI regarding an application filed by Arvind Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from the Delhi excise policy case. Appearing in person, the Aam Aadmi Party's Leader informed the court that he would argue the recusal application himself, asserting that he has not authorized any legal counsel for this specific plea.

On March 9, the High Court had issued notice to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, K Kavitha, and 20 others on a petition filed by the CBI challenging their discharge in the Delhi excise policy case. The Court also stayed the operation of the trial court's "scathing remarks" and the direction for a departmental inquiry against the CBI’s investigating officers, terming such observations "uncalled for" at this stage.

Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts discharged the accused after finding that the CBI failed to establish a prima facie case. The judge stated that the voluminous chargesheet contained numerous gaps and lacked support from witness statements or documents. Regarding Arvind Kejriwal, the court ruled he was implicated without any cogent material, while it found no evidence to charge Manish Sisodia.

The trial court’s order included a sharp critique of the CBI's investigation. The judge noted "misleading averments" in the chargesheet and observed that the evidence presented did not match the claims made by the agency. Consequently, the court ordered a departmental inquiry against the CBI’s Investigating Officer to address these lapses.

In its revision petition, the CBI argues that the trial court’s decision is legally flawed. The agency contends that the judge conducted a "mini-trial" by performing an in-depth evaluation of evidence that is typically reserved for a full trial, rather than the charge-framing stage. The CBI is seeking to overturn the discharge and stay the order for an inquiry against its officer.

On September 13, 2024, the Supreme Court had allowed Kejriwal's bail plea in the corruption case related to the excise policy scam. On September 5, the Bench had reserved order in the bail plea.

On August 14, the Court had refused to grant interim bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the corruption case related to the excise policy scam. The Bench had issued notice to the CBI on the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Kejriwal against the Delhi High Court order upholding his arrest by the agency.

Earlier, on August 5, the Delhi High Court had denied interim bail to Kejriwal in the corruption case. The Court had pronounced the order, which was reserved on July 29. Earlier, on July 17, the Court reserved order in his plea challenging arrest in the case.

It is to be noted that on July 2, the Court had issued notice to the CBI in Kejriwal's plea challenging arrest. Thereafter, Kejriwal also moved a bail plea; in the same case, a notice was issued to the CBI on July 5.

Kejriwal was arrested by the CBI on June 26 from Tihar Jail, where he was already in judicial custody till July 3 in a PMLA case related to an excise policy scam. Initially, the AAP National convenor was remanded 3-day CBI remand by a Trial Court order dated June 26. Thereafter, Kejriwal had been initially sent to 14-day judicial custody, i.e. till July 12.

On August 27, 2024, the Supreme Court had also granted bail to K. Kavitha, Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader and daughter of Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Delhi excise policy scam case. The Court had also granted bail to former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia in the excise policy scam case.

Cause Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kuldeep Singh and Ors. [CRL.REV.P.: 134/2026]