The Delhi High Court is scheduled to pronounce its verdict today on pleas filed by Arvind Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Sharma from hearing the Delhi excise policy case.
AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal addressing a press conference. (AAP)
The Delhi High Court on Monday allowed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convenor Arvind Kejriwal to file a written response to the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) arguments in connection with the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the CBI’s challenge to the discharge of 23 accused in the alleged liquor policy scam.
Justice Sharma orally remarked that it is “going out of its way” and making an exception for AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal “so that he doesn’t feel tomorrow that he has not been heard”, reported The Indian Express.
The judge was due to pronounce the verdict on whether the court will recuse itself from hearing the CBI’s plea at 2:30 pm on Monday. With the fresh filing by Kejriwal, the court has now postponed the verdict pronouncement to 4:30 pm.
“You say you have respect for me. I have respect for every litigant. The rule of court will not be changed for anyone, so I will treat it as written submissions. I am taking it on record,” the court observed.
The recusal pleas form part of the legal proceedings arising from the CBI’s challenge to the trial court’s February 27 order discharging Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and 21 others in the case related to alleged irregularities in the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed Kejriwal’s fresh filing, pointing out that no other “aam aadmi” (common man) would have received this benefit. “Before any court in the country, there is no procedure of filing a rejoinder once judgment is reserved. This is taking things a bit too far… His affidavit is drafted by a lawyer, it is writ large,” he added.
What Is The Case About?
Earlier this month, Kejriwal moved a plea in the Delhi High Court seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the matter, alleging that the hearing before the judge would not be impartial and neutral. He argued that the bench only endorses what the CBI and ED ask for, and Justice Sharma herself has attended Adhivakta Parishad events linked to the BJP and RSS.
He also cited a “conflict of interest” owing to Justice Sharma’s two children empanelled on the government’s panel of its advocates. The CBI had then filed its written submissions the same day, rebutting Kejriwal’s arguments.
Solicitor General Mehta opposed the plea, arguing that the threshold for recusal is “extremely high” and must be based on tangible material rather than perceptions.
ALSO READ: Why Arvind Kejriwal Wants Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Removed From Delhi Liquor Policy Case
On Monday, Kejriwal appeared virtually before Justice Sharma and requested that his rejoinder be allowed to be taken on the court’s record, else it will amount to “miscarriage of justice”. Justice Sharma responded by saying that the court was “going out of the way” to accommodate his wishes.
“Despite reserving for orders, I took your pleadings on record. There is no provision in law which allows rejoinder to written submissions, but I can understand that you may not know that since you are not a lawyer,” she added.
April 20, 2026, 15:37 IST
Read More
