AAP Chief Arvind Kejriwal, along with other accused persons, has filed a recusal application before Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma in front of Judge Swarana Kanta Sharma in the High Court of Delhi. This has been revealed by AAP through their press statement released on Sunday.
This legal manoeuvre follows a March 16 decision by the High Court to grant the accused additional time to respond to a challenge brought by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The agency is currently contesting a lower court's decision to release Kejriwal and 22 others.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) wasted no time in criticising the move, framing it as an attempt to undermine the legal process. Delhi BJP spokesperson Praveen Shankar Kapoor suggested the application was born of desperation, questioning whether the AAP leader held any genuine respect for the judicial system after previously failing to have the case transferred to a different bench.
The tension between the AAP leadership and the current bench is not new. On March 11, the accused wrote to Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya seeking a transfer of the case, citing a "grave and bona fide apprehension" that they would not receive an impartial hearing. They pointed to the court's initial hearing on March 9, where Justice Sharma observed that the trial court's order to discharge the accused appeared "erroneous" before even hearing their side of the story. The request, however, was formally turned down by the High Court's registrar general on March 13.
The roots of the current dispute lie in a February 27 ruling by Special Judge Jitendra Singh at the Rouse Avenue trial court. In an exhaustive 601-page judgement, the judge discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others, stating bluntly that the CBI’s evidence failed to meet even the basic threshold of a prima facie case. In addition, the judge ordered a departmental inquiry against the investigating officer for having misused his powers to conduct an unjust investigation.
No doubt, the CBI appealed against the critical decision because the trial court overlooked a great deal of evidence such as WhatsApp messages and emails. Justice Sharma subsequently stayed the order for departmental action against the CBI officer and requested that the Enforcement Directorate’s related money laundering case be deferred until the outcome of the CBI’s appeal is determined. All eyes now turn to Monday’s hearing to see how the court addresses the demand for recusal.
Also read: Chadha’s ‘exit’ doesn’t augur well for AAP in Punjab
Follow us
