New Delhi: The Delhi High Court will Monday a plea by former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and others discharged in the liquor policy case, seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing a CBI petition against the trial court decision.
The AAP leader will argue his plea, which will come up for hearing at 2.30 pm, before Justice Sharma.
April 6, the judge had taken the AAP chief’s application for her recusal on record and listed it for hearing April 13.
Kejriwal has sought the recusal of Justice Sharma, claiming there was a grave, bona fide and reasonable apprehension that the hearing in the matter before her would not be impartial and neutral.
Besides Kejriwal, the applications for recusal of the judge have also been filed by AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak. Other respondents, including Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai, have also filed similar applications.
February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the excise policy case and pulled up the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), saying its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice to all 23 accused on a CBI plea against their discharge, saying certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appeared erroneous and needed consideration.
She also stayed the trial court’s recommendation on the initiation of departmental action against the CBI’s investigating officer in the liquor policy case.
Later, Chief Justice of Delhi High Court D K Upadhyaya declined Kejriwal’s request to transfer the CBI’s plea from Justice Sharma to another judge and said that a call on recusal has to be taken by the judge concerned.
Seeking dismissal of the recusal application, the CBI has said in its response that Kejriwal and others cannot seek the recusal of Justice Sharma merely because she attended a legal seminar organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, an RSS-affiliated confederation of lawyers, as it does not demonstrate any ideological association.
The CBI asserted that making unscrupulous and sweeping allegations of bias over attending legal seminars, which had no political topic, was an attempt to scandalise and lower the court’s authority and interfere with the administration of justice, which amounted to contempt of court.
It also said the request was based on frivolous and baseless averments, which were wholly vexatious.
The agency said that a view taken by a judge in a judicial decision cannot be the basis to allege bias and that the request by Kejriwal and others amounted to forum shopping.
