New Delhi: In a dramatic and rare courtroom moment, former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal personally argued his recusal application before the Delhi High Court, placing on record a detailed and point-by-point submission expressing what he termed as a “reasonable apprehension” of bias.
The matter was heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who allowed Kejriwal to present his arguments in person.
At the outset, Kejriwal began respectfully, saying, “Can I start, ma’am? Thank you very much for allowing me to appear personally in this recusal application. I have deep respect for the judiciary, for Your Lordship, and also for the Solicitor General.”
The court responded by asking him to focus strictly on the recusal plea.
“I Am Not Here as an Accused”
Kejriwal clarified that he was not appearing as an accused, stating that he had already been “honourably discharged” by the trial court. He attempted to read excerpts from the trial court order, which noted that the prosecution case did not even meet the threshold of suspicion.
However, the bench intervened, directing him to confine arguments to the recusal issue.
Trigger Point: March 9 Order
Kejriwal said his apprehensions began after the High Court’s March 9 order, which, according to him, was passed ex-parte in the absence of all parties except the CBI.
He argued that:
- The trial court had conducted three months of day-to-day hearings
- Examined hundreds of pages of evidence
- Yet, the High Court termed parts of that order “prima facie erroneous” within minutes
“I was shocked… I began to have serious apprehensions whether I would get justice,” he said.
He added that he had written to the Chief Justice seeking transfer of the case to another bench, and after receiving a response, filed the present recusal plea.
Legal Ground: ‘Reasonable Apprehension of Bias’
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Ranjit Thakur vs Union of India, Kejriwal stressed:
“The test is not whether the judge is actually biased, but whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of the party.”
He repeatedly maintained that his concern was not about the integrity of the court, but about perception.
Key Arguments Raised by Kejriwal
Kejriwal listed 10 major reasons behind his apprehension:
1. Strong Prior Observations by Court
He argued that earlier orders of the High Court contained “strong and almost conclusive findings,” which, in his view, suggested a pre-determined approach.
2. Contradiction with Trial Court Findings
The trial court had concluded:
- No corruption
- No kickbacks
- No proceeds of crime
Whereas, he claimed, earlier High Court observations suggested otherwise.
3. Ex-Parte Order Without Hearing Accused
He emphasized that:
- The March 9 order was passed without hearing the accused
- Without full trial court records
- Based only on the CBI’s submissions
“This violates principles of natural justice,” he argued.
4. Stay on ED Proceedings Without Prayer
Kejriwal alleged that:
- ED was not even a party in the CBI revision
- Yet, proceedings related to ED were stayed
- This was done without a written request
He termed the court “very generous” in granting such relief.
5. Observations on Non-Appearance
He objected to the court’s remark that parties “chose not to appear,” stating:
“I have appeared regularly for four years. Why would I skip hearings?”
6. Speed of Proceedings
He claimed his case was being heard at an unusually fast pace compared to other matters, suggesting differential treatment.
7. Opportunity to File Replies
Kejriwal argued that:
- Time granted for replies in his case was shorter than in other cases
- Extensions were given only after intervention by Solicitor General
8. Pattern of Accepting CBI/ED Arguments
He alleged a pattern where:
- “Every argument of CBI/ED was accepted”
- “Every prayer was granted” (with limited exceptions)
9. Perception of Institutional Bias
He referred to:
- Public perception about investigative agencies
- Supreme Court’s earlier remark calling CBI a “caged parrot”
10. Statements and External Factors
Kejriwal cited:
- A statement allegedly made by Union Home Minister
- Social media discussions
- Participation of the judge in certain public events
He clarified these contributed to a perception in his mind, not allegations.
Court’s Response and Exchanges
Justice Sharma repeatedly emphasized:
- The hearing was limited to recusal only
- Arguments should remain focused and structured
- Court procedure would be followed strictly
At one point, the judge noted:
“Court functions in its own manner. I will conduct it accordingly.”
She also cautioned against deviation from decorum during arguments.
Final Submission
Concluding his arguments, Kejriwal said:
“Individually and collectively, these reasons create a strong apprehension in my mind that I may not receive a fair and impartial hearing.”
He requested the court to consider recusal in the interest of justice.
What Happens Next?
The court recorded submissions and is expected to decide on the recusal plea after considering all arguments.
The case continues to remain a key legal and political development, closely watched across the country.
