‘Not a forum for theatrics’: Heated exchange in Delhi HC as Kejriwal seeks judge’s recusal in excise policy case

At 2.45 pm in Court No. 25, Kejriwal said, “Maine recusal application file kiya hai (I have filed a recusal application), this may kindly be taken on record.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, immediately took objection and retorted: “Please maintain decorum, it is my petition, I want to say four things”.

“Some people in this country make a career of making allegations, baseless allegations against everyone, and that will have to be taken seriously,” Mehta said.

“It is an allegation against the institution and we will have to support that institution. You go on a public platform and allege anything against anyone, that’s another thing,” he added.

AAP National Convener Arvind Kejriwal arrives at the Delhi High Court to appear in connection with the liquor scam case, in New Delhi. (Express Photo By Amit Mehra)

Stressing that if Kejriwal is going to appear personally in the matter, he will have to “discharge” the services of his lawyer and will have to henceforth “address the court in every hearing, Mehta added, “I have no difficulty if he argues personally… this forum of this honorable court is not for theatrics, that you do your theatrics for a day and then you say ‘now my lawyer will take over’.”

Mehta went on to submit that if recusal applications are ultimately rejected by the court, “then it would be contempt of the court, considering the past conduct where baseless allegations have been made against everyone”.

The Solicitor General claimed that the CBI has received seven applications of the 23 accused, seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal. “If anyone else wants to join the bandwagon, they can be given one week, so that everyone comes here in what appears to be a well-thought-of design to file it one after the other… either they have faith (in this court) or they do not have faith… We can see through the game.”

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S V Raju, also appearing on behalf of CBI, added, “So that the purpose of delay doesn’t survive.”

Justice Sharma, acceding to the CBI’s request, instructed that if any of the other accused wish to file recusal application, they may do so now, “so that I can decide it once and for all, so that it is not in piecemeal”.

She remarked, “Later on, if somebody moves this application (seeking recusal), I will not hear it.”

Standing before the court in his half-sleeve shirt, Kejriwal said calmly before Justice Sharma: “Ma’am, I have filed a recusal (application). As per the procedure of the High Court, petitioner-in-person is not allowed e-filing, I’ll need permission from the court and then I can go through the registry. Alternatively, if the court can take it on record, I’ve brought the hard copies, then I’m even prepared to argue today or any other date.”

Kejriwal clarified before the court that he will be arguing the recusal application himself and “subsequently whatever are my legal rights, I’ll exercise my rights”.

“Right now, I’ve not issued my vakalatnama [a document that attests that a litigant has entrusted a matter to a particular lawyer who will be representing the litigant in court] to anyone so there’s no question of discharge [a lawyer from the duties of representing him],” said Kejriwal to Mehta’s contention.

While Mehta went on to term the allegations in the recusal applications as “frivolous, vexatious and contemptuous”, the court took Kejriwal’s application on record and issued notice. The court also instructed the registry to take the application on record.

The background

The HC is hearing the CBI’s revision petition against the trial court’s February 27 verdict that declined to put Kejriwal and the other accused on trial.

The case was listed before Justice Sharma, whose roster deals with criminal cases involving MPs and MLAs.

On March 9, the bench stayed the trial court’s observations recommending departmental action against the Investigating Officer (IO). The order was passed ex parte without hearing arguments on behalf of the accused.

In the order, Justice Sharma had said the stay was necessitated by “certain factual discrepancies” in the trial court’s order. The HC said some of the trial court’s observations regarding statements of witnesses and approvers, made at the stage of charge itself, prima facie appeared to be “erroneous”. Justice Sharma had also requested that the trial court’s proceedings in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case should be deferred.

In March, Kejriwal, former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and others had sought the intervention of HC Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya to transfer the case from Justice Sharma’s roster to “any other appropriate bench”. They argued that there exists a “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension that the matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality.”

However, the representation was rejected, and an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. On Monday, the Delhi HC was informed that the challenge now stands withdrawn at the SC.

Meanwhile, only 4 of the 23 have responded to CBI’s plea so far.

Meanwhile, with the court’s footfall on Monday leaving even counsel of the parties in the case standing outside and logging into the proceedings virtually, Justice Sharma, minutes after the matter was over, was heard remarking on a lighter note, “Iss court ka darwaza bada karwa do (Widen this court’s door).”