Opposing the recusal application before the Delhi High Court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta characterized the plea as a "mala fide" attempt by Arvind Kejriwal and other respondents to choose their own Bench through strategic character assassination.

Mehta contended that the Court's previous observations were legally mandatory under Section 19 of the PMLA and pointed out that several of these findings had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Labelling arguments regarding the Judge's attendance at legal programs as "juvenile," the SG urged the Court to dismiss the application with strictness and suggested the initiation of contempt action, asserting that the judiciary must not succumb to "forum shopping" or the pressures of social media narratives.

The Bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma heard the matter at length and reserved the order on the applications. 


Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and ASG SV Raju appeared for the CBI and the ED, while Senior Advocates Sanjay Hegde and Shadan Farasat appeared for the Respondents.

The High Court was hearing a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, K Kavitha, and 20 others in the Delhi excise policy case. This was followed by a trial court order which cleared all 23 accused of corruption charges related to the alleged liquor policy scam.

Arguing his recusal application in person, Arvind Kejriwal contended that he possesses a "real, grave, and reasonable apprehension" of bias, asserting that the Court’s previous observations upholding his arrest and labeling the alleged scam in strong terms have effectively "pre-judged" his guilt. He highlighted the "extraordinary speed" of the current proceedings and the ex-parte stay granted against his discharge order, suggesting these actions, coupled with the Judge's past attendance at Adhivakta Parishad events, create a perception of prejudice.

Kejriwal argued that since the trial court's discharge order found no evidence of a crime—directly contradicting this Court's earlier findings—it is professionally difficult for the same Bench to adopt a neutral stance, emphasizing that under settled law, the standard for recusal is not the actual integrity of the judge but the reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant.

Senior Advocate Hegde, appearing for Manish Sisodia, submitted that the Court has domain knowledge of the case and the focus should not be on the bias but on the apprehension of bias in the mind of the petitioner/applicant. Hegde emphasized that the standard for recusal rests not on the judge's actual integrity, but on whether a litigant—viewing the matter as a "man fighting for his freedom"—possesses a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Hegde pointed out that because the Court had previously expressed firm views in related proceedings, it becomes difficult for a person already "bitten" by such observations to feel certain of an impartial revision. He further submitted that since the Delhi High Court has several other benches available, a recusal would not hinder the administration of justice, but rather uphold the principle that the judicial mind should "step back" when its certainty might overlap with the subject matter of a fresh challenge.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appeared for Vijay Nair and argued that recusal is a "peculiar jurisdiction" that mandates the Court to step outside its own professional perspective and consider the mindset of the individual whose life and liberty are at stake. Farasat said that the stark contradiction between the High Court's previous observations and the trial court's discharge order was noted, noting that both were based on the exact same factual record.

He submitted that for those who have already "suffered" under the Court's earlier views, it is a matter of profound concern whether the same Bench can now adopt a completely opposite stance during the revision of a discharge order that has disbelieved the entire prosecution case. 

"We are not looking from the perspective of the judge or someone else, but only and only from the perspective of the litigant...the view that has been taken by the Ladyship in the earlier orders might be taken again, that is the apprehension", he said.

Farasat submitted that there was no advance service, as required in the High Court, in the challenge to the discharge order, as the service was done upon the lawyers appearing in the trial court and not the parties. Therefore, nobody could appear and submit their arguments on the first date of the hearing. 

Farasat said, "Recusal in a criminal matter stands on a constitutionally sensitive position. My liberty is at stake. The threshold will be slightly higher."

After conclusion fo arguments on behalf of other respondents/applicants seeking recusal, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta started his submissions.

He said, "First of all, why this matter assume importance. It's very easy for the court and the agency, but kindly appreciate. The precedent it sets, based on surmises, conjectures and unreasonable apprehension and virtually maligning the Bench, that a litigant can choose the bench. If judges start recusing, will any judge in this country be able to decide impartially?"

Mehta emphasized that it is not only the agency’s right to oppose the application but also the Court's duty to thwart attempts to cast aspersions on the judiciary, which he claimed are designed to create an atmosphere of pressure. Defending the Court’s previous detailed orders, the SG submitted that the law—specifically Section 19 of the PMLA—requires a thorough examination of facts, and that the "threshold for recusal" must remain at the highest level to ensure that judges can continue to decide cases impartially without fear of intimidation or strategic character assassination.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta further contended that the High Court was legally bound to conduct an in-depth review of the case during the earlier proceedings. Referring to Section 19 of the PMLA, Mehta explained that the law mandates a court to verify two preconditions: the existence of material on record and the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

He argued that any High Court, in determining the legality of an arrest, is required to go into the depths of the matter to see if those reasons were sufficient, and doing so does not equate to bias. "We may succeed, we may lose, but we have to be fair to the court," Mehta added, asserting that the Court was simply performing its mandatory judicial duty.

Accusing the applicants of "suppression," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the recusal plea was not a bona fide application but a strategic attempt to undermine the Court. He pointed out that the Supreme Court had previously affirmed the High Court’s findings in related orders, a fact he claimed was intentionally omitted by the defence. Mehta clarified that the observations made in previous bail or arrest challenges were "tentative" and legally mandatory under the PMLA, as upheld in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case.

Addressing Manish Sisodia's bail, the SG noted that the Supreme Court granted relief solely due to "long incarceration" rather than a disagreement with the High Court’s findings. Furthermore, he countered Kejriwal's claim regarding lack of notice, stating that High Court rules permit service to counsel and that the very same lawyers served in March were now appearing in court, labelling the entire application a "mala fide" attempt to choose a preferred Bench.

Regarding the submission related to the Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Parishad, Mehta submitted, "I have a very serious view on that. The political views of parties may be anything. It is a bar association...the question which goes to the moot of the question, if an Hon'ble Judge is invited to a bar association to speak on a subject of law and not on ideology, would the judge be justified in refusing?...this is such a juvenile argument, if I may say so...From Supreme Court to this court and other high courts have attended functions of adhiwakta parishad and spoke on law. I don't want to name and sensationalise. But please have a look at another judge of this court. Would this judge also be disqualified? One sitting judge of the Supreme Court, with your ladyship and the subject was the same...I have serious objections to what Respondent No. 18(Arvind Kejriwal) has submitted...His bail is granted by one of the judges who has attended the Adhivakta Parishad...It is disheartening that someone can even raise this contention."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta further asserted that the Respondents’ conduct revealed a strategy of delay and forum shopping, noting that despite being served for the March 9 hearing, they chose not to appear. He pointed out that immediately following the Court's interim order, Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia petitioned the Chief Justice for a bench transfer—a request that was declined on March 13.

Mehta highlighted that while the Respondents challenged the interim order in the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition (SLP) and a writ against the Chief Justice's order, they have kept the SLP in "office objections" for weeks without pursuing it.

He argued that the "prima facie" observations in the March 9 order were a legal necessity for granting interim relief and that the current recusal plea is merely a rehash of the same arguments already bypassed in higher forums.

Mehta further dismissed the claim of bias by noting that the Court’s previous observations were made at a time when the trial court's eventual discharge order could not have been foreseen. He argued that judicial consistency is a structural requirement of the Delhi High Court, citing Rule 8, which mandates that even when a larger bench is constituted to resolve conflicting views, the judges who expressed the original opinions must be part of that bench.

Mehta contended that expressing a firm judicial view based on the record at a specific stage is a duty of the office, not a ground for recusal, and that the respondents' "apprehension" fails to meet the legal standard required to displace a sitting judge.

Mehta submitted, "This recusal should be rejected with strictness. Based on the material in this case, other benches have also dealt with them and arrived at the same conclusion. Even if they have a separate view, that is no ground for seeking recusal."

He added, "There are several things going on in the country. Its a question of how the system is made to function with honesty. If this is the standard, would the case decide cases on the basis of what the public feels? For social media posts? For social media, you need a few things, phone, data and a lot of time. You may criticise Donald Trump. You may say that Dr Manmohan Singh's financial policies were not correct! We don’t go by media posts."

Concluding his submissions, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the expedited timeline of the proceedings—which the respondents cited as a sign of bias—was actually a fulfillment of a judicial mandate. He reminded the Court that the Supreme Court has issued specific directions for the "expeditious disposal" of cases involving MPs and MLAs, placing them on a different footing than regular litigation.

Mehta urged the Court not only to dismiss the plea with heavy costs but also to initiate contempt action against the applicants for making unsubstantiated allegations against the Bench.

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]

Tags: