Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal alleged that Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had attended events organised by the Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyers’ body affiliated with the RSS, on four occasions. He further said he strongly opposed the BJP-RSS ideology.
Former Delhi Chief Minister and AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal on Monday alleged that Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma attended an event hosted by Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyer’s body affiliated with the RSS, four times. He said he was opposed to the BJP-RSS ideology and called the Delhi liquor policy case “political”.
Kejriwal has sought the withdrawal of Justice Sharma from hearing a CBI petition related to the liquor policy case. He has claimed that there was a grave, bona fide and reasonable apprehension that the hearing in the matter before her would not be impartial and neutral.
“There’s a lawyer’s body, Adhivakta Parishad. It is an ideological body of the BJP and RSS. Your honour has attended its events four times. The ideology they follow is something we strongly oppose and we oppose it openly. This case is political,” said Kejriwal, who appeared in court in person.
Kejriwal, in his submission, alleged political bias and raised concerns over judicial perception, questioning whether participation in events linked to a particular ideology could impact fairness in his case.
Citing Supreme Court observations, he referred to the remark, “In a functional democracy, perception matters,” and also invoked past comments describing the CBI as a “caged parrot,” arguing that investigative agencies must maintain independence and dispel perceptions of bias. He further claimed that the court itself had observed that the CBI was “subject to political bias.”
‘WILL I GET JUSTICE?’
Kejriwal argued that if a judge has attended events associated with a specific ideology, an accused from an opposing ideology may reasonably fear denial of justice, asking, “If I am from the opposite ideology, will I get justice?”
He also alleged selective urgency in hearings involving Opposition leaders, stating that only cases involving political opponents of the Centre were being taken up at a faster pace, and that there was undue haste in hearings and filings.
On the Delhi liquor policy case, the AAP chief claimed that the High Court had largely endorsed the arguments of the ED and CBI, saying that “every prayer by ED and CBI has turned into a judgment, except in one case.”
Kejriwal argued that he was not appearing as an accused, saying, “I am not standing here today as an accused. I have already been discharged.”
He referred to earlier proceedings, including the March 9 order, alleging that it was passed after a brief hearing with only the CBI present. He said, “Ex parte, without hearing anyone, without taking anyone’s reply. This court passed an order stating that, prima facie, the order is erroneous.” He claimed the trial court had examined thousands of pages, but its order was overturned after a short hearing.
On February 27, the trial court gave clean chit to Kejriwal, former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case and pulled up the CBI, saying its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
On March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice to all 23 accused on a CBI plea against their discharge, saying certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appeared erroneous and needed consideration.
‘MY HEART SANK AFTER SEEING COURT ORDER’
During the hearing, Kejriwal further said the March 9 order triggered serious apprehensions of bias, adding, “My heart sank. I had serious apprehensions about bias. Therefore, I wrote a letter to the Chief Justice.” He said he later approached the court after his representation was rejected.
Citing legal principles, he argued that even an apprehension of bias is sufficient for recusal, stating, “If there is an apprehension of bias in the mind of a party, then there is a case for recusal. The apprehension in my mind is a matter between me and the court. The CBI should not be made a party.”
Referring to earlier related cases, he said several matters involving co-accused had already been heard, including bail petitions, and said, “The observations made by this court in those matters amount to judgments.”
He alleged that in some instances, conclusions were drawn within a few hearings, saying, “It appears the court gave a final judgment on many of those points in just two hearings.”
On Sisodia’s case, he argued that conclusions on corruption were premature, saying, “It felt as if we were not just declared corrupt, but extremely corrupt.” He added that the Supreme Court had later set aside certain findings, claiming this showed inconsistency in earlier observations.
