1. Perceived support of ED-CBI arguments
During the hearing, Kejriwal pointed out what he described as a pattern where “every argument of ED CBI is upheld by the court” and “every sentence of ED CBI becomes a judgment”. He maintained that this trend, observed in multiple previous orders, contributed to his apprehension.
2. Unusual speed in procedures
He also cited the speed with which some procedures were developed, stating that no other matters were being processed “at this speed,” especially those involving “the most prominent political opponents.” When the court asked, “So you are implying political bias?”, Kejriwal responded by emphasizing the impression such circumstances create rather than alleging personal bias.
3. Ex parte order of March 9
Kejriwal further referred to an ex parte order passed on March 9, arguing that it stayed the trial court proceedings without hearing all parties. “In the absence of the opposite party (an ex parte proceeding carried out without prior notice), this Court passed an order. Subsequently, after a hearing lasting five months, this Court declared that order to be prima facie erroneous,” he said, questioning the urgency of such intervention. The court responded that the way an order is drafted cannot be challenged before it and is a matter for a higher forum.
4. Previous judicial observations
Another key ground raised by Kejriwal related to earlier judicial observations. He argued that strong findings had already been recorded on issues such as approvers’ statements and alleged corruption, which could influence future hearings. “It seems that the court handed down a final sentence in just two hearings,” he said, adding that he had been “almost found guilty and corrupt” in previous proceedings.
5. The relief extended beyond formal prayer
He also objected to what he described as the extension of relief beyond what was formally sought. Referring to the prima facie order of March 9, he said though it arose out of a petition by the CBI, the relief affecting the proceedings of the Enforcement Directorate was granted on the basis of an oral application. “The ED had nothing to do with it. Mehta ji simply made a verbal demand,” he argued.
6. Suspension of the procedure related to the investigating agent
Kejriwal also flagged the suspension of proceedings relating to the investigating officer, pointing out that the officer had not sought such relief. “The IO is not even asking for it,” he said, calling it a fact that “raises deep doubts.”
7. Language used in court orders
Among other reasons, Kejriwal cited language used in court orders, the alleged denial of an adequate opportunity to file responses and references in an order stating that the parties had “decided not to attend,” which he said left him “a little sad.”
8. Denial of suitable opportunities
He also expressed concern that he had not been given sufficient opportunity to submit responses, arguing that such procedural denials affected the fairness owed to him.
9. Perceived ideological proximity
He expressed concern about the perception of ideological proximity, referring to the judge’s attendance at events organized by a body that linked the RSS. “If your honor attends a program of a particular ideology, then it creates a reasonable bias,” he said, adding that he and his party strongly oppose that ideology. The court asked for clarification on whether such events were legal or political in nature.
Survey
Do you consider that previous judicial observations can bias future hearings?
10. Apprehension of fairness and integrity
During the proceedings, Kejriwal emphasized that the issue was not the judge’s integrity but the perception of justice. “The issue is not the integrity of the judge, the issue is the apprehension in the mind of the party,” he said, drawing on Supreme Court rulings to argue that a reasonable apprehension alone can justify recusal. He also drew parallels with the Satyendar Jain case, where a matter was transferred after arrests surfaced, arguing that he was seeking similar parity.