The plea was originally scheduled for a hearing today. However, with Justice Tejas Karia backing off, the plea will now be heard tomorrow.
Delhi High Court Justice Tejas Karia, on Wednesday, withdrew himself from hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) involving the former Chief Minister of Delhi and the Aap Aadmi Party (AAP) supremo, Arvind Kejriwal, several other AAP leaders, and journalist-turned YouTuber, Ravish Kumar, for allegedly recording and circulating court proceedings in an unauthorised manner.
“This matter will not be heard by this bench. List tomorrow before a bench of which one of us (Justice Karia) is not a member,” the division bench also comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya said, as reported by Live Law.
Delhi High Court Justice Tejas Karia, on Wednesday, withdrew himself from hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) involving the former Chief Minister of Delhi and the Aap Aadmi Party (AAP) supremo, Arvind Kejriwal, several other AAP leaders, and journalist-turned YouTuber, Ravish Kumar, for allegedly recording and circulating court proceedings in an unauthorised manner.
“This matter will not be heard by this bench. List tomorrow before a bench of which one of us (Justice Karia) is not a member,” the division bench also comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya said, as reported by Live Law.
In his plea, Singh requested the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the matter. He also sought the removal of the videos from social media and alleged that Kejriwal, along with his associates, tarnished the image of the judiciary by circulating those videos.
The plea was originally scheduled to be heard today. However, with the recusal of Justice Karia, it will now be heard tomorrow. Justice DK Upadhyaya will determine the specific bench that will hear the PIL.
WHAT HAPPENED ON APRIL 13
Arvind Kejriwal, on April 13, questioned judicial neutrality while seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from a CBI matter related to the Delhi liquor policy case.
Calling the issue politically sensitive, he cited a “reasonable apprehension of bias,” pointing to the judge’s reported participation in events organised by Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyer’s body affiliated with the RSS.
