Liquor policy case: Seeking judge’s recusal, Kejriwal says her children are Centre’s counsel

Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal on Tuesday filed a fresh affidavit seeking that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recuse herself from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s challenge to his discharge in the Delhi liquor policy case, flagging her children’s empanelment with the Union Government, Live Law reported.

Kejriwal’s affidavit stated that advocates Ishaan Sharma and Shambhavi Sharma, the judge’s son and daughter, have been empanelled as counsels by the Centre.

Kejriwal highlighted that they are both allocated cases by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is appearing before the court representing the CBI, Hindustan Times reported.

“The very law officer and legal establishment representing the prosecuting side before this Hon’ble Court is also part of the institutional mechanism by which Central Government cases and Government work are allocated to the immediate family members of the Hon’ble Judge hearing the matter,” Kejriwal said.

An empanelled counsel is a lawyer selected by a government body, public sector undertaking or organization to represent their legal cases for a designated period.

Kejriwal argued that the apprehensions of bias are “direct, grave and impossible to ignore”, Live Law reported.

On Wednesday, the former Delhi chief minister told the court that he had not been given enough time to file a rejoinder and had left the courtroom on Monday with the court’s permission as the hearing continued beyond the usual court hours, ANI reported.

He argued that this impeded his right to a fair hearing.

On Monday, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had reserved her verdict in a previous plea filed by Kejriwal and others who were discharged in the case.

During that hearing, Kejriwal, who argued the matter himself, had verbally submitted that there was a social media discussion regarding the professional association of the judge’s children with the Union government, Live Law reported.

He said then that established traditions have seen judges recuse themselves if their kin had associations with any of the parties appearing in the matter.

Videos of Kejriwal arguing his case in person before the High Court on Monday had been shared widely on social media. However, the High Court subsequently directed the police to remove unauthorised videos of Kejriwal’s arguments from social media platforms, Bar and Bench reported.

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”.