|
Former Delhi Chief Minister and AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal on Wednesday told the Delhi High Court that he was not given an opportunity to file a rejoinder and had left the courtroom with the court's permission, even as the hearing continued later.
He has raised this issue in a fresh affidavit supporting his plea for recusal of the presiding judge in the excise policy case. In his affidavit, Kejriwal said that after finishing his arguments, he sought and received permission to leave. However, the proceedings went on beyond usual court hours, and he was unable to respond to further submissions. He argued that this affected his right to a fair hearing. Kejriwal also reiterated his main argument that the system of assigning government legal work creates a reasonable apprehension of conflict of interest. He said that cases are allocated by top law officers like the Solicitor General to panel lawyers, and this creates a connection between the prosecution and the professional work of the judge's family members. He stated that such empanelment involves regular work, payment and court appearances and is not just honorary. Referring to RTI information, he claimed that a large number of government cases were assigned over the years, showing an ongoing professional relationship with the Central Government. Since the Solicitor General is appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation in this case, he argued that this overlap creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of a litigant. Calling the matter politically sensitive, Kejriwal said the case involves central agencies prosecuting an opposition leader, so fairness must also be seen to be done. He clarified that he is not alleging actual bias, but only raising a concern about possible perception of bias. He also objected to the court passing orders in the main case while the recusal plea was still pending, saying this could raise further concerns about fairness. During the hearing, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said it was the first time she had been asked to recuse and that she had "learnt a lot about the recusal jurisdiction", while reserving the order. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, opposed the plea and called it frivolous. He said such requests should not be allowed, as they could let litigants choose judges. He also said earlier court observations were only preliminary and made in a different context. Senior Advocates Sanjay Hegde and Shadan Farasat, appearing for the other accused, argued that the issue should be seen from the perspective of a reasonable person and that past observations could create a perception of bias. The case relates to the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, where the CBI has challenged the trial court's discharge of Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others. The High Court has reserved its order on the recusal plea. (ANI)
|
