Delhi liquor policy case: Arvind Kejriwal claims Delhi HC judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma attended RSS-linked events 4 times & more related news here

Former Delhi Chief Minister and AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal on Monday alleged that Delhi High Court judge Swarana Kanta Sharma attended an event organized by Adhivakta Parishad, an RSS-affiliated lawyers’ body, four times. He said he was opposed to the ideology of the BJP-RSS and termed the Delhi liquor policy case as “political”.

Kejriwal has requested that Justice Sharma withdraw from hearing a CBI petition related to the liquor policy case. He has submitted that there was a serious, genuine and reasonable apprehension that the hearing on the matter before him would not be impartial and neutral.

“There is a body of lawyers, Adhivakta Parishad. It is an ideological body of the BJP and the RSS. Your Lordship has attended their events four times. The ideology that they follow is something that we strongly oppose and openly oppose. This case is political,” said Kejriwal, who personally appeared before the court.

Kejriwal, in his submission, alleged political bias and expressed concern about judicial perception, questioning whether participation in events linked to a particular ideology could affect fairness in his case.

Citing observations of the Supreme Court, he referred to the observation: “In a functional democracy, perception matters”, and also invoked earlier comments describing the CBI as a “caged parrot”, arguing that investigation agencies must maintain independence and dispel perceptions of bias. He further stated that the court itself had observed that the CBI was “subject to political bias”.

‘WILL I GET JUSTICE?’

Kejriwal argued that if a judge has attended events associated with a specific ideology, a defendant of an opposing ideology can reasonably fear denial of justice and asked, “If I am of the opposite ideology, will I get justice?”

He also alleged selective urgency in hearings involving opposition leaders, claiming that only cases involving political opponents of the Center were being taken up at a faster pace and that there was too much rush in hearings and presentations.

In the Delhi liquor policy case, the AAP chief claimed that the High Court had largely upheld the arguments of the ED and the CBI, saying “every sentence of the ED and the CBI has become a judgment, except in one case.”

Kejriwal argued that he was not appearing as an accused and said, “I am not here today as an accused. I have already been released.”

He referred to earlier proceedings, including the March 9 order, claiming that it was passed after a brief hearing in which only the CBI was present. He said, “Ex parte, without hearing from anyone, without getting any response from anyone. This court passed an order stating that prima facie the order is erroneous.” He claimed the trial court had reviewed thousands of pages, but its order was overturned after a brief hearing.

On February 27, the apex court gave a green light to Kejriwal, former Delhi deputy chief minister Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case and removed the CBI, saying their case was totally unable to survive judicial scrutiny and was completely discredited.

On March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice to the 23 accused on a CBI plea against their release, saying certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of prima facie charges appeared erroneous and needed consideration.

‘MY HEART SINKED AFTER SEEING THE COURT ORDER’

During the hearing, Kejriwal further said that the March 9 order raised serious fears of bias, adding, “My heart sank. I had serious fears of bias. Therefore, I wrote a letter to the Chief Justice.” He said he later went to court after his representation was rejected.

Citing legal principles, he argued that even an apprehension of bias is sufficient for recusal, stating: “If there is an apprehension of bias in the mind of a party, then there is a case for recusal. The apprehension in my mind is a matter between the court and me. The CBI should not become a party.”

Referring to previous related cases, he said several matters involving co-accused, including bail petitions, had already been heard and said: “The observations made by this court in those matters amount to judgments.”

He alleged that in some cases conclusions were reached in just a few hearings and said: “It appears that the court made a final judgment on many of those points in just two hearings.”

In Sisodia’s case, he argued that the conclusions about corruption were premature, saying: “It seemed as if we were not only declared corrupt, but extremely corrupt.” He added that the Supreme Court subsequently rejected certain conclusions, claiming that they showed inconsistency with previous observations.

Kejriwal further said that the CBI case was largely based on statements of the approvers and argued that questioning them effectively undermines the trial court’s order.

Kejriwal sought permission from the court to leave after concluding his submissions. The judge appreciated his arguments and commented: “You argued very well. You can even become a lawyer.”

Responding with a smile, Kejriwal said, “Thank you ma’am. I am happy with what I am doing now.”

During the hearing on April 6, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, opposed Kejriwal’s withdrawal plea, terming it baseless. The CBI had also filed a formal reply against the application.

– Finish

Tune in