Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s orders, conduct outside court has created apprehension: Kejriwal

Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal on Monday told the Delhi High Court that the orders issued by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and her conduct outside the court has created reasonable apprehensions in his mind about getting a fair hearing in the liquor policy case, Bar and Bench reported.

The former chief minister made the statements in his petition seeking that Sharma recuse herself from hearing the challenge filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation to his discharge in the case.

During the hearing on Monday, Kejriwal, appearing in person, claimed before Sharma that she had repeatedly passed orders in favour of Enforcement Directorate and CBI in the liquor policy case.

He claimed that there was a “pattern” in which “every single argument of ED, CBI is endorsed by the court”, adding that every petition filed by the two central agencies had been converted into judgements, The Times of India reported.

The AAP chief added that this trend, which he had observed in several earlier orders, had contributed to his apprehensions.

Citing the pace at which certain proceedings had been conducted in the case, Kejriwal also claimed that no other matter was being heard “at this speed”, especially those concerning the “most prominent” political opponents, the newspaper reported.

He also raised concerns about “perceived ideological proximity”, referring to Sharma attending an event of an organisation linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The RSS is the parent organisation of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

“If your honour is attending a programme of a particular ideology, then it creates reasonable bias,” The Times of India quoted the former chief minister as having told the court.

Kejriwal added that he, along with the AAP, opposed this ideology.

During the proceedings, the AAP chief said that the matter did not pertain to the integrity of the judge but to the perception of fairness, the newspaper reported. Referring to previous Supreme Court judgements, he added that reasonable apprehension alone can justify recusal.

The judge reserved her verdict in the plea after the hearing that lasted for about four and a half hours, Bar and Bench reported.

Sharma said that this was the first time that someone had asked her to recuse herself, the legal news portal reported.

“I have learnt a lot on the recusal jurisdiction,” she was quoted as saying. “I hope I will give a good judgement.”

Kejriwal, along with AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak, and other persons accused in the matter including Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai, have sought that the judge recuse herself because of the grounds of a reasonable apprehension that she lacks impartiality, The Hindu reported.

Their plea cited previous rulings by Sharma in related cases as proof of bias.

At the previous hearing on Wednesday, the CBI opposed the applications filed by Kejriwal and the others seeking Sharma’s recusal.

In its response before the High Court, the CBI argued that the judge’s decision to attend a legal seminar organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyers’ organisation linked to the RSS, cannot be treated as evidence of ideological bias.

The CBI argued that the claim was untenable, adding that if attending events shows ideological bias of any judge, “then [a] large number of sitting High Court and Supreme Court judges would have to recuse [themselves] from hearing any case where politically exposed persons are accused”.

The case

The CBI had alleged irregularities in the Delhi government’s liquor excise policy, which has since been scrapped. Based on the CBI case, the Enforcement Directorate also launched an investigation into allegations of money-laundering.

The policy came into effect in November 2021. It was withdrawn in July 2022 with Vinai Kumar Saxena, the Delhi lieutenant governor at the time, recommending an investigation into the alleged irregularities of the policy.

The two central agencies alleged that the Aam Aadmi Party government at the time modified the liquor policy by increasing the commission for wholesalers from 5% to 12%. This allegedly facilitated the receipt of bribes from wholesalers who had a substantial market share and turnover.

On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 others accused by the CBI in the case. There was no overarching conspiracy or criminal intent in the excise policy, the Rouse Avenue Courts had ruled.

The trial court also criticised the central agency for implicating Kejriwal without any cogent material. It said that the chargesheet had several gaps not supported by any witnesses or statements.

However, the High Court on March 9 stayed the adverse observations made by the trial court about the CBI. The matter was heard by Sharma, who prima facie observed that the trial court’s findings were erroneous.

Kejriwal had written to the chief justice of the High Court seeking the transfer of the case from Sharma to another judge, but the request was declined. The former Delhi chief minister had contended that no specific reasons had been recorded for commenting against the trial court’s order.

He also noted that the judge had earlier denied bail to several persons accused in the case who had been subsequently granted relief by the Supreme Court.

The Aam Aadmi Party chief sought the transfer on the ground of a “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension that the matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality”.