Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma reserves a 4:30 PM verdict after accepting Arvind Kejriwal’s additional submissions. CBI opposes the plea and seeks contempt action
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday said it will pronounce its verdict at 4:30 PM on pleas seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Delhi liquor policy case, involving former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and other accused.
The development came after the court agreed to take on record additional written submissions filed by Kejriwal, who appeared virtually and urged the bench to consider his rejoinder to the Central Bureau of Investigation submissions.
Court Accepts Additional Pleadings, Alters Schedule
Justice Sharma noted that although the order was earlier scheduled for 2:30 PM, she was “going out of her way” to accept Kejriwal’s rejoinder as written submissions, thereby pushing the pronouncement to later in the day.
The court clarified that while there is no legal provision for filing a rejoinder to written submissions, it was being accepted in the interest of fairness.
“You say you have respect for me. I have respect for every litigant. The rule of court will not be changed for anyone,” the judge observed while allowing the submissions on record.
She further emphasised that since Kejriwal was appearing in person without legal representation, the court had already extended procedural flexibility by permitting additional affidavits even after reserving orders.
CBI Opposes Move, Calls It Procedurally Unusual
Appearing for the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly opposed the acceptance of any additional pleadings after the order had been reserved.
He argued that courts across the country do not entertain fresh submissions at such a stage, adding that there is no concept of a rejoinder to written submissions under law.
Mehta urged the court to follow standard procedure and treat the case like any other, warning against setting a precedent.
Recusal Plea Based on Alleged Bias and Conflict of Interest
Kejriwal, along with AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak, has sought the judge’s recusal, raising concerns over alleged bias.
The plea cites previous rulings by Justice Sharma, including denial of relief in matters related to Kejriwal’s arrest and bail pleas of co-accused such as K Kavitha.
Kejriwal also alleged a “direct conflict of interest”, claiming that the judge’s children are empanelled central government lawyers who receive assignments linked to the Solicitor General.
Other accused, including Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai, have also filed similar applications seeking recusal.
Solicitor General Seeks Contempt Action
Taking a strong stance, Mehta urged the court to initiate contempt proceedings against Kejriwal and others, terming their allegations as baseless and damaging to judicial integrity.
“These are apprehensions of an immature mind. It is a matter of institutional respect,” Mehta argued, urging the court not to yield to pressure.
He further warned that recusal on what he described as “unfounded allegations” could set a troubling precedent for the judiciary.
Background: Trial Court Discharge Order
The developments come against the backdrop of a February 27 trial court ruling, which discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the liquor policy case.
The trial court had observed that the CBI’s case failed to withstand judicial scrutiny and stood “discredited in its entirety”.
