Kejriwal seeks judge’s recusal, says he fears unfair hearing in excise policy case

Former Arvind Kejriwal on Monday appeared before the Delhi High Court and requested that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma step aside from hearing the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Delhi excise policy case. Kejriwal told the court that he had a “reasonable apprehension” that he may not receive a fair hearing in the matter.

The case relates to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy, which has led to multiple investigations and legal proceedings involving several leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party. Kejriwal was joined by former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and others who also sought recusal of the judge.

After hearing arguments for more than four hours, the court reserved its order on the applications. This means the judge did not pass an immediate decision and will issue an order later.

Kejriwal personally addressed the court and argued that earlier orders had created concern in his mind about the fairness of future proceedings. He referred to a trial court order passed on February 27, which had discharged him, Sisodia, and several others in the CBI case. According to him, that detailed order came after months of hearings and review of thousands of pages of documents.

He then referred to the High Court proceedings held on March 9, where the CBI challenged the discharge order. Kejriwal said the trial court’s findings were quickly questioned after a short hearing, which caused him concern. He argued that much of the relief granted by the lower court had been weakened.

ALSO READ: Trump says he does not care if Iran returns to talks after negotiations fail

ALSO READ: Putin announces 32-hour ceasefire in Russia-Ukraine war for Orthodox Easter

Arguments made by Kejriwal and co-accused

Kejriwal told the court that his request was not personal but based on legal principles of fairness and confidence in the judicial process. He said litigants must feel that their matter will be heard impartially.

During arguments, he claimed there was a pattern in which submissions made by investigating agencies such as the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate were being accepted. He also referred to proceedings in the connected money laundering case, saying that if those hearings had continued without delay, he might have received similar relief there as well.

The former chief minister also raised concerns over the judge’s participation in events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad. He argued that the organisation follows an ideology opposed to the AAP and said this added to his apprehension.

However, legal experts often note that judges attending professional events or bar association functions does not automatically indicate bias. Such matters are usually examined carefully on facts and context.

Kejriwal further argued that some earlier court observations appeared strong and could create an impression that the accused had already been judged, despite the discharge order of the trial court. He said this was one more reason behind the request for recusal.

Justice Sharma responded during the hearing and said she did not understand some of the arguments being made regarding bias.

CBI opposes plea and seeks strict action

The CBI strongly opposed the request. Representing the agency, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, along with other law officers, argued that such pleas should not be entertained without strong evidence.

The agency said allowing litigants to seek recusal based on assumptions or fears would create a dangerous precedent. According to the CBI, it could encourage parties to choose judges of their preference whenever they were unhappy with court proceedings.

The CBI also sought contempt proceedings against Kejriwal and others, arguing that some of the allegations made against the court were serious and could undermine confidence in the judiciary.

The Solicitor General defended the March 9 order and said it was passed after hearing the matter properly. He argued that the court had only deferred connected proceedings to balance legal interests and had not acted unfairly.

Regarding the allegation linked to the lawyers’ body, the law officers said it was a professional association and judges from many courts, including the Supreme Court of India, regularly attend such events. They said this should not be treated as evidence of prejudice.

The Delhi excise policy case has remained politically significant because it involves senior AAP leaders and allegations of irregularities in policy formation and implementation. The accused leaders have repeatedly denied wrongdoing and claimed the investigations are politically motivated. Investigating agencies reject those claims and say they are acting on evidence.

The trial court’s February 27 discharge order had given temporary relief to Kejriwal, Sisodia, and others by saying the available material did not show even a prima facie case at that stage. That order is now under challenge before the High Court.

The latest hearing focused not on guilt or innocence, but on whether the judge should continue hearing the case. The court has reserved its decision, which means all sides must now wait for the next order.

Whatever the outcome, the decision could shape the future course of the excise policy litigation. If the recusal plea is rejected, the same bench may continue hearing the appeal. If accepted, the matter may be assigned to another judge. For now, the legal and political spotlight remains firmly on the Delhi High Court.