Kejriwal Argues His Plea For Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's Recusal : Live Updates From Delhi High Court | Liquor Policy Case

Mehta: This recusal should be rejected with strictness. Based on material in this case, other benches have also dealt with them and arrived at same conclusion. Even if they have separate view, that is no ground for seeking recusal.

Mehta: Fear is something that the respondents are trying to instil.

Mehta: Judges cannot respond….. SC has said that this tendency is growing and it has gone to this proportion as we are seeing today.

Mehta: There is a rule in Delhi Hc that suppose a matter comes before DB which finds some other DB judgment is in conflict with some SC judgment, they express the opinion. Rule 8 provides that in larger bench, the judges who express contrary view have to be on the bench.

Mehta: The contention is that some observations of your ladyships gives them apprehension that fair justice will not be given. The reason for those observations, at that time nobody knew someone will file a discharge application which will be allowed.

Mehta: Registry of this court records that lawyers were served.

Mehta: All counsels were served. And they are appearing today also. I dont wish to name them but same counsels.

Mehta: till date this SLP is kept in office objections. They have not removed. And now the same arguments are made.

Mehta: Challenging March 9 order on ground that prima facie some observations were made. whenever the court anywhere passes interim order, prima facie observations have to be made. But they went SC by filing SLP and a a writ challenging CJ order refusing recusal application. When matter was next listed on March 16, time was sought by respondents.

Mehta: This order was passed on March 9 and immediately thereafter, on March 10, Mr. Kejriwal and Mr. Sisodia moves Chief Justice that remove the matter from this bench. CJ passes order on March 13. Next date, two proceedings are filed.