Kejriwal files recusal application against Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma in liquor scam case
Former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, along with other former accused, on Sunday moved a recusal application before Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma in the Delhi High Court in the alleged liquor scam. According to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Kejriwal will appear and argue in person on Monday.
This comes days after the high court gave a final opportunity to Kejriwal and others to file their stand on a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to expunge “unwarranted” remarks made against it by the trial court while discharging them in the liquor policy case.
Kejriwal and others had later also written to Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya, requesting that the matter be transferred to some other bench rather than the single bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma. The HC has, however, declined the request. Now, Kejriwal will argue the matter before the court of Justice Kanta and appear personally to say why he is requesting the judge’s recusal.
In a representation made on March 11, Kejriwal, as well as AAP leader Manish Sisodia, along with other accused in the excise policy case, claimed there was a “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension” that the hearing in the matter before Justice Sharma would not be impartial and neutral.
On March 9, Justice Sharma’s Bench stayed the trial court’s recommendation on the initiation of departmental action against the CBI’s investigating officer in the liquor policy case. Issuing notice to all 23 accused on the CBI’s plea against their discharge, Justice Sharma said certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appeared erroneous and needed consideration.
Kejriwal claimed in the representation that his apprehension was based on Justice Sharma’s past conduct and said that on the very first day of the CBI’s revision petition against his discharge, she proceeded to record a prima facie view that the trial court’s detailed order was “erroneous”, even without hearing the other side.
Justice Sharma, Kejriwal’s representation contended, did not disclose any “specific perversity” when she stayed the trial court’s directions against the CBI official.
