Kejriwal’s plea requests that Justice Sharma step aside from adjudicating a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which challenges a trial court’s order discharging him and others in the case.
“Apprehension of Bias” Central to Argument
During the hearing, Kejriwal argued that a litigant’s reasonable apprehension of bias is sufficient ground for a judge’s recusal. Citing the landmark judgment in Ranjith Thakur v Union of India, he emphasized that the issue is not actual bias, but whether a party fears they may not receive a fair hearing.
He alleged that prior observations made by the court had effectively treated the accused as “guilty” and “corrupt,” despite their discharge by the trial court.
Concerns Over Judge’s Public Appearances
Kejriwal also raised concerns over Justice Sharma’s attendance at events linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its affiliate, the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad.
He argued that repeated participation in such events “creates an apprehension” of ideological bias, particularly as AAP openly opposes the ideology associated with these organizations. He described the case as “political” in nature.
Court’s Response and Legal Threshold
Responding to the arguments, the bench noted that recusal can only occur under limited circumstances. Justice Sharma remarked that the key issue was whether Kejriwal genuinely believed he would not receive justice from the court.
The judge also questioned whether Kejriwal was suggesting political bias in the handling of the case, particularly given his remarks about the pace of proceedings involving opposition leaders.
Allegations of Prejudicial Observations
Kejriwal contended that earlier rulings—including those related to his arrest and bail applications of other accused such as Sanjay Singh and K. Kavitha—contained observations that amounted to final judgments.
He further claimed that in a prior order upholding his arrest, the court had effectively concluded that alleged funds were used by AAP in Goa elections, leaving “only the sentence to be pronounced.”
CBI’s Counterarguments
Appearing for the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the plea, warning of broader implications.
He argued that if judges begin recusing themselves based on such apprehensions, it could set a precedent making it difficult for courts to function effectively.
Mehta also pointed out that earlier findings by the High Court had been upheld by the Supreme Court, and accused the petitioners of suppressing this fact.
Trial Court vs High Court Findings
Kejriwal highlighted that the trial court’s conclusions differed significantly from those of the High Court. He noted that the trial court had criticized the manner in which approvers were handled by the CBI and ultimately discharged him after extensive hearings.
He also expressed concern over what he described as the High Court’s continued reliance on its earlier findings, even when reviewing the trial court’s order.
Ongoing Proceedings
The hearing remained ongoing at the time of reporting, with both sides presenting detailed arguments on legal principles, judicial conduct, and the broader implications of recusal in politically sensitive cases.
