Former Delhi Chief Minister and AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal raised allegations of potential bias against Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, stating that she had attended events organised by the Adhivakta Parishad—a lawyers’ body he described as ideologically aligned with the RSS—on multiple occasions. He emphasised that he strongly opposes the BJP-RSS ideology and characterised the Delhi liquor policy case as politically motivated.
Appearing in court in person, Kejriwal sought the judge’s recusal from hearing a CBI petition related to the case. He argued that there existed a genuine and reasonable apprehension in his mind that the proceedings might not be impartial. Referring to the judge’s participation in events linked to a particular ideological group, he questioned whether such associations could influence judicial neutrality, especially when the litigant holds opposing views.
Kejriwal framed his argument around the principle that perception plays a crucial role in a functioning democracy. He cited past observations of the Supreme Court and raised concerns about the independence of investigative agencies, reiterating remarks that have previously described the CBI as susceptible to external influence. He maintained that even the perception of bias is sufficient grounds to seek recusal.
During the exchange in court, Justice Sharma clarified that she did not subscribe to any particular ideology, responding directly to Kejriwal’s implications. Kejriwal, in turn, stated that he was not making a direct allegation but expressing concern that repeated participation in such events could create an impression of sympathy towards a specific ideological standpoint. He stressed that his apprehension stemmed from how a litigant might reasonably perceive the situation.
He further questioned whether he could expect a fair hearing given his ideological opposition, stating that the issue was not about proving bias but about the possibility of perceived partiality. The judge responded that she would consider and record his arguments as part of the proceedings.
Kejriwal also alleged that cases involving opposition leaders were being handled with unusual urgency, suggesting selective prioritisation. He criticised the manner in which earlier orders were passed in the liquor policy case, claiming that the High Court had largely echoed the arguments of investigative agencies. Referring to a March 9 order, he argued that it was issued without giving adequate opportunity for response, despite the trial court having examined extensive material before granting relief to him and other accused.
He reiterated that he had already been discharged in the case and was not appearing as an accused in the current proceedings. However, he expressed concern that prior observations by the High Court could influence ongoing matters. He also cited instances where, according to him, conclusions appeared to have been drawn prematurely in related cases, including those involving co-accused.
Highlighting his concerns further, Kejriwal said the March 9 order had intensified his apprehensions, prompting him to write to the Chief Justice before formally raising the issue in court. He argued that the perception of bias, even if not substantiated, is sufficient under legal principles to justify recusal, as it affects the confidence of the litigant in the judicial process.
The CBI, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, opposed Kejriwal’s plea, describing it as unfounded. The agency also submitted a formal response contesting the request for withdrawal of the judge from the case.
After concluding his submissions, Kejriwal sought permission to leave the courtroom. Justice Sharma acknowledged his arguments, remarking on the clarity of his presentation, while the proceedings continue with the court expected to consider the recusal plea and related issues.
