Legal – Kejriwal Raises Fair Hearing Concerns in Delhi High Court Case
Legal – Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Wednesday informed the Delhi High Court that he was not given a chance to file a rejoinder during an ongoing hearing and had exited the courtroom with prior permission, even as proceedings continued afterward.
Claim of Missed Opportunity During Extended Hearing
In a fresh affidavit submitted to support his request for the presiding judge to step aside, Kejriwal stated that after completing his arguments, he had sought approval to leave, which was granted. However, the hearing reportedly continued beyond regular court hours, during which additional arguments were presented. According to him, this prevented him from responding further, raising concerns about whether he received a complete opportunity to present his case.
Concerns Over Possible Conflict of Interest
Kejriwal reiterated his broader argument regarding the system through which government legal work is assigned. He said that senior law officers, including the Solicitor General, allocate cases to panel lawyers, which could potentially create overlapping professional relationships. He argued that such arrangements may lead to a perceived connection between the prosecution and individuals related to the judiciary.
He further pointed out that these assignments are not merely symbolic. They involve consistent legal work, payments, and regular court appearances. Referring to information obtained through the Right to Information mechanism, Kejriwal claimed that a significant number of government cases have been distributed over time, indicating an ongoing professional association with the central administration.
Argument Focused on Perception, Not Allegation
Highlighting the political sensitivity of the matter, Kejriwal said the case involves central investigative agencies pursuing allegations against a prominent opposition leader. In such circumstances, he stressed that justice must not only be delivered but must also be seen to be delivered transparently.
He clarified that his plea does not accuse the judge of actual bias. Instead, it raises concerns about how the situation might appear to a reasonable observer. According to him, even the perception of a possible conflict could undermine confidence in the judicial process.
Objection to Orders During Pending Recusal Plea
Kejriwal also raised an objection to the court issuing orders in the main case while his recusal application was still under consideration. He argued that such actions might deepen apprehensions regarding fairness and procedural integrity.
Court and Legal Representatives Respond
During the proceedings, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that this was the first instance in which she had been asked to recuse herself from a case. She remarked that the situation had provided her with insight into the legal framework governing recusal before reserving her decision on the matter.
Representing the Central Bureau of Investigation, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed Kejriwal’s request. He described the plea as lacking merit and warned that allowing such applications could set a precedent where litigants attempt to influence which judges hear their cases. He also stated that earlier observations made by the court were preliminary and should not be interpreted as bias.
Meanwhile, Senior Advocates Sanjay Hegde and Shadan Farasat, appearing for other accused individuals, argued that the issue should be evaluated from the standpoint of an ordinary, reasonable person. They suggested that prior remarks in the case could contribute to a perception of partiality, even if unintended.
Background of the Case
The matter is linked to the Delhi Excise Policy for 2021–22. The Central Bureau of Investigation has challenged a trial court decision that had discharged Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and others in connection with the policy. The High Court has now reserved its verdict on the recusal plea, and a decision is awaited.