CBI opposes Kejriwal’s plea for recusal of Delhi HC judge
New Delhi: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Wednesday opposed former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s application seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Delhi excise policy case against him, saying the plea was “frivolous” and “baseless”.
Citing “ideological bias”, Kejriwal—along with former deputy CM Manish Sisodia, AAP communications in-charge Vijay Nair, and three others—had sought Justice Sharma’s recusal from hearing the CBI’s appeal against a trial court order discharging Kejriwal and 22 others in the Delhi excise policy case.
However, in an affidavit filed before the Delhi High Court, the CBI argued that Justice Sharma’s attendance at a function of the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, the RSS’s legal wing, did not indicate any “ideological bias”. By that logic, many sitting high court and Supreme Court judges would have to recuse themselves, the CBI added.
“If attending a function of Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Parishad shows ideological bias of any judge then large number of sitting High Court and Supreme Court judges would have to recuse from hearing any case where Politically Exposed Persons are accused,” the CBI’s affidavit reads.
Kejriwal’s application “is based on frivolous and baseless averments and grounds,” the CBI told the Delhi High Court, while adding that its contents were “wholly vexatious” and an attempt to lower the court’s dignity.
The CBI’s affidavit follows an 11 March appeal by Kejriwal, Sisodia and other accused in the excise policy case, which claimed there was a “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension” that the hearing before Justice Sharma would not be impartial and neutral.
Also Read: ‘Not a forum for theatrics’—Solicitor General takes potshot at Kejriwal during Delhi HC hearing
CBI’s affidavit
Opposing Kejriwal’s argument that Justice Sharma had passed five judgments rejecting relief to the petitioners in this case, the CBI said that on three different occasions, in January 2024, the same judge had given them the benefit or interim bail.
“Passing of both favourable and unfavourable orders to the accused/applicant itself shows that there cannot be any apprehension of bias whatsoever,” the CBI told the court.
The agency argued that Kejriwal had only placed selective orders and suppressed favourable orders passed by the judge, and this was grounds alone to reject his application.
Refuting allegations of bias made by Kejriwal against the judiciary, the CBI also said that the concept of “bias” cannot be attached to the views of judges taken during judicial proceedings. “If that is the touchstone for recusal, which has been argued by the opposing counsels, then it would tantamount to forum-shopping or selection of benches by parties by seeking recusal of judges who hold seemingly contrary or unfavourable views,” it said.
Moreover, the CBI argued that no party had the right to be heard by a bench of its own choice as the authority to compose the bench lies with the Chief Justice, who is the master of the roster.
Relying on the top court’s 2024 ruling in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, the CBI said that there was a compelling need to ensure that cases involving MPs and MLAs are taken up on priority and decided expeditiously.
In response to Kejriwal’s allegation that the proceedings were being conducted hastily, the CBI gave the example of the Lalu Yadav and the IRCTC scam case, where a total of 27 hearings have taken place expeditiously in less than three months.
Turning to the well-settled law on recusals, the CBI said an order of transfer or a judge’s recusal is not to be passed at the “drop of a hat” or as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of the trial.
“Such power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations,” the CBI said.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: How CBI case against Kejriwal, Sisodia unravelled. ‘Failed to establish even policy manipulation’
