Kejriwal says he will not appear in person or through lawyer in case heard by judge Swarana Sharma

Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal on Monday said that he will not appear in person or through a lawyer before a Delhi High Court bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

The judge is hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s challenge to him and several others being discharged in the Delhi liquor policy case.

Kejriwal said that he has written to the judge to inform her about his decision. He added that he will reserve his right to challenge in the Supreme Court the verdict given by Sharma in the case.

Kejriwal’s contentions

The former Delhi chief minister’s comments came a week after Sharma on April 20 rejected his plea that she recuse herself from hearing the case.

During the hearings, Kejriwal had 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.

He had also argued before Sharma that she had repeatedly passed orders in favour of the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate in the liquor policy case.

On April 14, the Aam Aadmi Party leader filed a fresh affidavit before the court seeking Sharma’s recusal. He had contended that the judge’s children had been empanelled as counsels by the Union government.

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

Kejriwal had highlighted that the judge’s children had been allocated cases by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the CBI in the liquor policy case. The former chief minister had argued that the apprehensions of bias are “direct, grave and impossible to ignore”.

Sharma had said that her “recusal would not be prudence but abdication of duty”. The judge added that she would decide the main case “without being affected by the recusal application”.

The case filed by the CBI will be heard on Wednesday.

In a video posted on social media on Monday, Kejriwal said that he was preparing to challenge in the Supreme Court the refusal by Sharma to recuse herself from the matter.

Kejriwal said that he has no personal enmity with the judge or her children, but added that “justice should not only be done, but should also be seen to be done”.

“This matter is no longer about my case,” he said. “It is about the common person’s trust in the judicial system.”

“If in the future, if there is any other matter in which the BJP, the Union government and Tushar Mehta is not the party against me, I will appear before her court,” he said.

The liquor policy 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 ED 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 court had ruled.

The court had 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 chief minister had contended that no specific reasons had been recorded for comments made 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 had 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”.