Kejriwal appears before high court in person to press recusal of judge hearing his case

New Delhi: Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Monday appeared in person before the Delhi High Court to press his application seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma who is hearing a petition by CBI challenging an order by the special CBI court discharging the Aam Admi Party (AAP) leader and other persons accused in the liquor policy case.

With Kejriwal's application not being on record, Justice Sharma posted the matter for consideration on April 13 after accepting the application presented by the former Delhi Chief Minister.

The court recorded that besides Kejriwal, some other accused had also filed application for recusal.

The court, which had already issued notice to Kejriwal and others on March 9, granted time till April 10 to the accused to file their response to the appeal.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, argued that the court was not a forum for theatrics and Kejriwal should discharge his lawyer if he wanted to appear in person in the case.

Mehta strongly objected to the recusal application and said Kejriwal's allegations against the "institution" were frivolous and contemptuous.

Earlier, Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya had turned down Kejriwal's request to transfer the CBI appeal from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another judge. While refusing transfer, the Chief Justice had observed that a call for recusal has to be taken by the judge concerned.

In a representation made on March 11, Kejriwal, as well as AAP leader Manish Sisodia, along with other persons accused in the excise policy case, claimed there was a "grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension" that the hearing in the matter before Justice Sharma would not be impartial and neutral.

Kejriwal had, thereafter, approached the Supreme Court butvhe withdrew his petition.

It is very unusual for a litigant to seek change of judge or even recusal unless there were compelling circumstances. In the absence of valid reasons, such attempts are seen as forum shopping.

In a judgment which created a political furore, the trial court had on February 27 discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others holding that no case for framing of charges and trial was made out. The special CBI court also made observations over CBI filing a chargesheet even in the absence of admissible evidence.

The CBI had, thereafter, appproached the Delhi High Court in appeal. Observing that the appeal deserved consideration as certain observations and findings recorded by the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appeared to be erroneous, Justice Sharma had issued notice to Kejriwal and other 22 accused on March 9.

Justice Sharma, while issuing notice, had also stayed the trial court's recommendation for initiation of departmental action against the investigating officer in the case.

The accused are yet to file their response to the petition filed by CBI. On March 16, Justice Sharma granted time to Kejriwal and others to respond to CBI's petition challenging their discharge.