For Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's Recusal, Kejriwal Relies On Court Accepting ED Plea To Change Judge In Satyender Jain's Case

Seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the liquor policy case, Aam Aadmi Party supremo Arvind Kejriwal cited the 2022 order of the Delhi High Court, which endorsed the Enforcement Directorate's plea to change the trial judge in AAP leader Satyender Jain's case.Kejriwal claimed that he had a stronger case than the ED's plea seeking recusal of the judge hearing Jain's case. He is seeking the recusal of Justice Sharma from hearing the CBI's revision petition challenging the trial court's order discharging Kejriwal and all other accused in the controversial liquor policy case.Kejriwal appeared before Justice Sharma and argued the matter himself. At the outset, he submitted that he respected the court and the judiciary. To this, Justice Sharma said, "The respect is mutual. We will just concentrate on this case and argue the recusal application. I am there to cooperate with you". Kejriwal submitted that he was no longer an accused, as he had been discharged. Referring to the discharge order of the trial court, Kejriwal said that the Trial court had heard the matter day-to-day, and after reading the evidence, he had been discharged. Kejriwal highlighted that the Trial Court said that the CBI's case was premeditated. However, on March 9, Justice Sharma, on the first date of hearing the CBI's petition, partially stayed the Trial Court's order, and made a prima facie finding that some of the Trial Court's observations were erroneous, even without hearing the other side. This, Kejriwal said, was an extraordinary action, which created a reasonable apprehension of bias in his mind.He said, "When this order came, my heart dropped. I had doubts whether court is biased and if I will get justice here. This is why I wrote to Chief Justice (of Delhi High Court) that case may be transferred to any other bench. Then I filed this application (for recusal)".He referred to a Supreme Court judgment on the principle of recusal and said:"The Supreme Court said that it is not necessary that a judge has to be biased, but if there is a reasonable doubt in the minds of the parties, then it is a case for recusal. I have apprehension in my mind. He further submitted that the application for recusal is between the Court and the applicant, and CBI has no locus in this. Similarities with Satyendar Jain's case on recusalHe further said that in a matter pertaining to Satyendar Jain's case, it was heard for 6 days. At that time, the ED had no apprehension, but on the last date of hearing, suddenly ED had an apprehension of bias, and sought the transfer of the judge. He said, "This court granted judgment in ED's favour. In that case, and in my case there are a lot of similarities. The question is not of the integrity of the judge, question is apprehension in the mind of the party. In that case, this court relied on the SC judgment. I am only requesting the same parity as ED (in Satyendar Jain), especially when my apprehensions are on much stronger ground".For context, Jain was booked by the ED in a 2017 money laundering case, wherein the ED had first moved the Principal District & Sessions Judge of Rouse Avenue Courts seeking transfer of proceedings from one court to another, which was allowed. Against this decision, Jain had approached the high court.Upholding the Principal District & Sessions Judge's order, a coordinate bench of the high court had in its 2022 judgment observed that the "question was not of an integrity or uprightness of the special judge or of the authorities over which Jain once had jurisdiction, but of an apprehension in the mind of a party".Though Jain had approached the Supreme Court against the high court order, however he had subsequently withdrawn his petition. Reasonable apprehension of not getting a fair hearingReferring to various judgments, Kejriwal further said, "…here exists in my mind real, grave and reasonable apprehension that this petition will not get a fair hearing. I am showing 10 grounds (of apprehension)...In Kanak Lata case, Supreme Court held that earlier strong observations may create reasonable apprehension…". Kejriwal further said that Justice Sharma had earlier dealt with his bail application and his challenge to arrest in the cases, and while dismissing those matters, observations regarding his guilt were made. Later, the Supreme Court granted him bail in both the ED and CBI cases."The High Court's observations almost amounted to judgments. My case related to illegal arrest. Limited matter court had to decide was whether the IO has reasons to believe. Court was not required to put weight behind reasons or give a final verdict. It appears the court gave a final judgment in just two hearings," he argued. Kejriwal referred to Justice Sharma's 2024 judgment upholding his arrest in liquor policy case and said:"One issue of ED, CBI's raids where no recovery was made, this court gave a strong finding, final finding on that. This is a very strong statement," he said. Kejriwal...

For Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's Recusal, Kejriwal Relies On Court Accepting ED Plea To Change Judge In Satyender Jain's Case

Nupur Thapliyal

'I have reasonable apprehension of bias," Kejriwal said, contending that Justice Sharma tends to accept whatever ED & CBI said.

Tags