|
Former Delhi Chief Minister and AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal has filed a fresh affidavit before the Delhi High Court pressing for recusal of the presiding judge, contending that the structure governing allocation of government legal work gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of conflict of interest in the excise policy case.
The Court has reserved its order for the recusal pleas. In his affidavit, Kejriwal focuses on the institutional process through which government cases are assigned to law officers and panel counsel, arguing that this mechanism creates a linkage between the prosecution in the present case and the professional engagements of the judge's immediate family members. He submits that this connection, viewed objectively, is sufficient to raise concerns about perceived neutrality. Referring to official notifications and FAQs issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Kejriwal states that while the Attorney General chooses matters for personal appearance, other cases are routed through the Solicitor General to additional law officers and panel counsel. According to him, this system establishes a continuing and structured professional interface with the Central Government. He further argues that such empanelment is substantive in nature, involving regular allocation of cases, financial remuneration and court exposure. Relying on RTI material, the affidavit points to a significant volume of government cases assigned over the years, suggesting an ongoing professional relationship. Kejriwal contends that since the Solicitor General is representing the Central Bureau of Investigation in the present proceedings and opposing his plea, the overlap creates a direct and reasonable apprehension in the mind of a litigant. Describing the matter as a politically sensitive prosecution involving central agencies against a prominent opposition leader, Kejriwal submits that the standard of judicial impartiality must be viewed not only in terms of actual fairness but also its perception. He clarifies that no allegation of actual bias is being made, but maintains that the test for recusal rests on whether circumstances give rise to a reasonable apprehension of lack of neutrality. The affidavit also raises procedural concerns, stating that hearings continued beyond regular court hours after he had concluded his submissions and left, thereby depriving him of an opportunity to respond. He further objects to substantive directions being issued in the main matter while the recusal application was still pending, arguing that such developments may reinforce apprehensions regarding the fairness of the process. During the hearing, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked that it was the first time she had been asked to recuse, observing that she had "learnt a lot about the recusal jurisdiction" and expressing hope of delivering a sound judgment, as the Court reserved orders after hearing all parties. Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, termed the recusal applications as frivolous and cautioned that entertaining such pleas could set a precedent enabling litigants to seek a change of bench by casting aspersions. He submitted that earlier observations of the Court were made in a distinct legal context and were only prima facie in nature, and rejected arguments based on public perception or external commentary. On the other hand, Senior Advocates Sanjay Hegde and Shadan Farasat argued that the issue must be examined from the standpoint of a fair-minded observer, submitting that prior judicial observations and surrounding circumstances could give rise to a reasonable apprehension warranting recusal. The matter arises out of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 case, in which the CBI has challenged the trial court's discharge of Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others. The High Court has indicated that the question of recusal will be decided independently of the merits of the case. (ANI)
|
