Kejriwal's Bold Recusal Bid Echoes ED's Past Success

In a dramatic courtroom showdown at the Delhi High Court, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) supremo Arvind Kejriwal personally argued for the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) criminal revision petition challenging the trial court's discharge of Kejriwal and other accused in the high-profile Delhi Excise (Liquor) Policy scam. Drawing parallels to the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) successful plea in 2022 to change the trial judge in AAP leader Satyendar Jain's money laundering case, Kejriwal asserted his grounds for "reasonable apprehension of bias" were even stronger. Justice Sharma reserved orders on the recusal applications after hearing submissions from co-applicants and a vehement opposition from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the CBI, who warned that granting the plea would set a "bad precedent" undermining judicial impartiality.

The hearing, held under the MP/MLA roster, underscored tensions in politically charged corruption probes, with Kejriwal listing 10 specific grounds ranging from ex parte stays and prior judicial observations to the judge's attendance at events of the Adhiwakta Parishad. This development keeps the spotlight on the liquor policy case, where trial court findings of "premeditated" CBI actions were partially stayed by Justice Sharma on March 9 without hearing the defence.

The Liquor Policy Saga: From Discharge to Revision

The roots of this recusal drama lie in the alleged 2022 Delhi Excise Policy scam, where CBI and ED probed AAP leaders for irregularities, including bribery and money laundering tied to liquor license allocations. In February, the Rouse Avenue trial court discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Vijay Nair, Durgesh Pathak, Rajesh Joshi, and others, holding after day-to-day hearings that no prima facie case existed. The court criticized the CBI's case as "premeditated," questioned investigating officer (IO) conduct, dismissed approver statements, and found no proceeds of crime or bribery.

Swiftly, within four hours of the discharge order, CBI filed a revision petition under Section 397 CrPC. On March 9—the first listing—Justice Sharma passed a partial ex parte stay, preserving proceedings against ED (despite no formal prayer), halting adverse remarks against the IO (who was not a party), and making prima facie observations that some trial court findings were "erroneous." This order, passed without serving respondents or hearing them, forms the crux of Kejriwal's bias claim. Kejriwal noted he immediately wrote to the Delhi HC Chief Justice seeking transfer, which was declined, prompting aborted Supreme Court challenges.

For context, the policy involved accusations of kickbacks to AAP for favorable licenses, with no recoveries in raids. Supreme Court later granted bail to Kejriwal and Sisodia, critiquing prolonged incarceration, though not overruling HC arrest validations.

Kejriwal's Ten Grounds of Apprehension

Arguing in person, Kejriwal opened respectfully: "I respect the court and the judiciary." Justice Sharma reciprocated, "The respect is mutual. We will just concentrate on this case... I am there to cooperate with you."

Kejriwal then unleashed his arguments, invoking Supreme Court precedents that recusal is warranted on "reasonable doubt in the minds of the parties," not proven bias. He claimed parity with Satyendar Jain's 2017 PMLA case, where ED sought transfer from a judge under Jain's prior jurisdiction as a minister. A coordinate Delhi HC bench upheld it in 2022, observing: "the question was not of an integrity... but of an apprehension in the mind of a party." Jain's SC petition was withdrawn.

Kejriwal's "stronger" grounds included:

  1. March 9 Ex Parte Order : "When this order came, my heart dropped. I had doubts whether court is biased..." He questioned staying ED proceedings (unrelated to CBI petition), IO remarks (IO not party), and trial court observations without hearing them or serving notice—contrary to SC caution against routine discharge stays.

  2. Prior Observations on Guilt : Justice Sharma's 2024 rulings upholding Kejriwal's arrests, bail rejections, and Sisodia's PMLA bail denial contained "final findings" on no-raids recovery, approver credibility, and corruption—exceeding the limited scope under PMLA Section 19. Trial court contradicted these entirely. "It appears the court gave a final judgment in just two hearings."

  3. Approver Statements : CBI case hinges on approvers; Justice Sharma's prima facie endorsement of them despite absent trial records fueled bias fears.

  4. MP/MLA Roster Haste : Urgent listing vs. months for other cases suggested selective speed against "political opponents."

  5. Trend of ED/CBI Endorsements : "Every single argument of ED CBI is endorsed... Every prayer converted into judgment."

  6. Adhiwakta Parishad Events : Justice Sharma attended four events of this "RSS-linked" body; AAP opposes its ideology. "If your honour is attending program of a particular ideology, then reasonable bias is created." Justice queried if political statements were made—Kejriwal said attendance alone sufficed.

  7. Social Media/External : Rumors of judge's children as central lawyers; Home Minister's SC appeal threat.

8-10. Cumulative prior dealings creating "real, grave apprehension" per Kanak Lata.

Kejriwal stressed CBI lacked locus in recusal, a matter between court and applicant.

Echoes from Co-Applicants

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde (for Sisodia): Domain knowledge sometimes requires "judicial mind to step back." Shadan Farasat (Vijay Nair): HC views opposite trial court's on same facts—stronger recusal ground per SC. Counsel for Durgesh Pathak: Public apprehension, social media affecting mental health; cited Frontline article. Rajat Bhardwaj (Rajesh Joshi): Granting relief to non-parties (ED/IO) bred apprehension.

CBI's Vehement Opposition: A Question of Precedent

SG Mehta framed it as precedent-setting: "based on surmises, conjectures... a litigant can choose the bench. If judges start recusing, will any judge... decide impartially?" He defended prior orders as PMLA-mandated, noted SC referral (not overruling) on arrests, Sisodia bail due to incarceration.

On ex parte: Applicants served, absented; no prejudice, as full stay not granted. Post-March 9, they approached CJ unsuccessfully, then SC (SLP pending).

Adhiwakta: "Bar association... SC to HC judges attend; even judge granting Kejriwal bail did." ED adjournment balanced predicate offence risks.

Social media: "Can't go by... phone, data and time." Urged dismissal with costs, contempt.

Justice Sharma's Composure Amid Allegations

Justice Sharma probed insinuations of "political bias," clarified roster mandates, and reserved order post-hearing.

Recusal Jurisprudence: SC Precedents Under Scrutiny

SC holds recusal for "real likelihood" of bias (Ranjit Thakur v. UOI), not hypersensitive fears. Threshold "highest"; lawyer signing scandalous pleas liable (State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak). Jain case emphasized party apprehension over integrity. Here, ex parte stays invoke natural justice; prior views test "open mind" doctrine.

Ramifications for High-Profile Litigation

This could redefine recusal in corruption cases, curbing forum-shopping but risking delayed justice in MP/MLA matters (SC time-bound directives). Heightens scrutiny on single benches; social media/ideology claims may invite contempt. Signals robust defence needed against "apprehension" tactics; impacts ED/CBI probes' momentum.

For practitioners: Document service meticulously; oppose recusal early. Politically, reinforces AAP-Central agency narrative.

Looking Ahead: Order Reserved, Stakes High

With order reserved, outcome could transfer case or affirm Justice Sharma, potentially appealed to SC. In liquor policy's tangled web, recusal fight spotlights justice's delicate balance—impartiality vs. perception—in India's polarized legal arena.