Delhi HC nod to Kejriwal to file response to recusal plea: ‘So he doesn’t feel… he has not been heard’

However, with the fresh filing by Kejriwal, the court has now postponed the verdict pronouncement to 4.30 pm.

Despite reserving the verdict on the specific aspect of recusal, the court said it is taking on record Kejriwal’s rejoinder as written submissions by “going out of [its] way, so that he does not feel tomorrow that he has not been heard, though on the last date of hearing this court… made it amply clear that it will not be reopened for arguments”.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, opposing Kejriwal’s fresh filing from being taken on record, pointed out to the court, “Let me make it very clear: throughout the country, before any court — trial court, high court, Supreme Court, anywhere — the moment the matter is reserved for judgment, no pleadings are taken on record. That’s the rule followed uniformly… Possibly no other aam aadmi (common man) would have got 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.”

On April 16, Kejriwal was permitted by the court to file an additional affidavit where he specifically brought to the court’s attention that he apprehends bias on the ground of ‘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.

On April 17, Kejriwal attempted to file a rejoinder rebutting the CBI’s submissions. According to the former Delhi CM, while this was briefly taken on record by the court’s registry, it had then refused to accept it sans the court’s permission.

On Monday, Kejriwal, representing himself and appearing virtually before Justice Sharma, requested that his rejoinder be allowed to be taken on the court’s record, else it will amount to “miscarriage of justice”.

Parties appearing in-person require the court’s assent to submit filings and be taken on record, unlike when such filings are made by enrolled and authorised advocates of litigants.

Justice Sharma, addressing Kejriwal Monday, orally said, “Aapko toh katah-e nahi bolna chahiye ki miscarriage of justice hojayega… For this reason, ki, aapko out of the way jaake iss court ne… maine aapka ek additional affidavit on record liya (after reserving the issue for judgment) jo normally kisi bhi aam aadmi ke liye nahi kiya jaata hai, kyunki aap self-represented the… registry ka ek rule hai, woh sab hi ke liye follow hota hai (You absolutely should not be saying this is miscarriage of justice since the court has been going out of the way to accommodate you, allowing you to make pleadings after reserving the judgment, which is otherwise not done for the common man, because you’re representing yourself. Registry has to go by the rules, which is applicable to all)…”

She further said, orally, “This is not an extraordinary case… 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…”

“Jo court ka jo procedure hai, usko hum kabhi bhi kisi ek vyakti vishesh ke liye idhar udhar nahi kar sakte hai (The court procedure cannot be tweaked for an individual). That said, since you are alleging bias, I’ll take it on record, not as a rejoinder but as written submission, I will treat it as written submission and deal with it in my judgment,” Justice Sharma remarked orally.