Kejriwal Seeks Judge’s Recusal in Excise Policy Case, Cites ‘Apprehension of Bias’
Arvind Kejriwal on Monday personally argued his petition in the Delhi excise policy case, seeking the recusal of a High Court judge.
The plea targets Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who is hearing the CBI’s challenge to a discharge order in favour of Kejriwal and others.
The case is significant as it touches on judicial impartiality and high-profile political litigation.
Kejriwal argued that past observations by the court had treated the accused as “guilty” despite their discharge.
He cited the legal principle from Ranjith Thakur v Union of India, stating that even an “apprehension of bias” is sufficient ground to seek recusal.
Kejriwal also referred to the judge’s participation in events linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, arguing that it raised concerns about impartiality.
The bench responded that recusal would depend on whether there was a reasonable apprehension that justice could not be delivered fairly.
Appearing for the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta cautioned against setting a precedent where judges recuse based on such claims, questioning whether any judge could then hear sensitive cases.
He also defended the judge’s past orders, noting that some findings had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The case has broader implications for judicial conduct and the standards governing recusal in politically sensitive matters.
It also reflects the continuing legal and political contest surrounding the Delhi excise policy case, involving multiple opposition leaders.
With arguments ongoing, the court’s decision on recusal will be closely watched for its legal and political significance.
Our Final Thoughts
Kejriwal’s decision to personally argue the case adds a notable dimension to an already high-profile legal battle. The focus on “apprehension of bias” brings attention to the delicate balance between judicial independence and public perception of fairness. While courts operate on established legal principles, cases involving political figures often attract heightened scrutiny, making transparency and consistency critical. The outcome of this plea could influence how similar recusal requests are handled in the future, particularly in politically sensitive cases.