Former Delhi Chief Minister and AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal accused Delhi High Court Judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of attending multiple events hosted by Adhivakta Parishad, a legal group associated with the RSS. Kejriwal, known for his opposition to the BJP-RSS ideology, labeled the Delhi liquor policy case as “political”.
Kejriwal has requested Justice Sharma’s recusal from overseeing a CBI plea concerning the liquor policy case, citing concerns about impartiality due to the judge’s alleged affiliations. Kejriwal emphasized the significance of judicial perception and questioned the impact of attending events aligned with a specific ideology on fair judgment.
Quoting Supreme Court precedents, Kejriwal emphasized the importance of public perception in a democratic setup. He highlighted concerns about the CBI’s independence and hinted at potential biases in the investigative process. Kejriwal expressed doubts about receiving unbiased justice if the judge had connections to a particular ideology.
During the proceedings, Kejriwal criticized the expedited handling of cases involving opposition figures, alleging a lack of fairness and transparency. He discussed the High Court’s stance on the liquor policy case, suggesting a pro-ED and CBI bias in their favor, except in one instance.
Kejriwal clarified that he was not present in court as an accused since he had already been cleared in prior proceedings. He raised objections to certain orders issued without comprehensive hearings, particularly mentioning the swift reversal of a trial court’s decision.
Regarding the CBI’s plea against the discharge of the accused in the liquor policy case, Justice Sharma issued notices for reconsideration based on potential errors in the trial court’s findings. Kejriwal expressed distress over perceived bias and emphasized the importance of fair judicial processes.
Kejriwal highlighted discrepancies in the handling of cases involving co-accused and criticized premature corruption judgments, pointing out inconsistencies in earlier rulings. He questioned the reliability of approver statements in the CBI’s case and sought permission to conclude his arguments before the court.
In a subsequent hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, opposed Kejriwal’s withdrawal request, labeling it unfounded. The CBI also submitted a formal response to the plea, prolonging the legal dispute.