‘Serious apprehension of bias’: Arvind Kejriwal seeks judge’s recusal
Kejriwal cited his apprehension of bias on political lines, as well as based on social media posts, stating that he is “strongly affected and apprehends bias of this court on the basis of social media posts which show a conflict of interest of this court”.
Former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, arguing for recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, told the court he had analysed a trend of her court of “endorsing” the investigating agencies’ arguments.
“Every single argument investigating agencies has been upheld and every prayer has been granted except one” of the investigating agencies in relation to the liquor policy cases, said the AAP leader, adding that Justice Sharma’s order of March 9 “appears to have neutralised most of the trial court order”.
Arguing in person on Monday, Kejriwal came with a caveat, “Pehli baar main court mein aaya hun (I have come to the court to argue for the first time). I’m nervous.”
Seeking Justice Sharma’s withdrawal from his case, Kejriwal raised grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias and said his analysis of the criminal cases pertaining to MP/MLAs before her court shows there are only two cases — one of them being his and another case involving a political opponent of the BJP — where the court is taking up the matters expeditiously.
Kejriwal cited his apprehension of bias on political lines, as well as based on social media posts, stating that he is “strongly affected and apprehends bias of this court on the basis of social media posts which show a conflict of interest of this court”.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for CBI, slammed his arguments, saying, “Will court take decisions based on what the public feels? Based on some social media posts? For social media, all you need are three things — phone, data and a lot of time. You can also criticise (US President) Donald Trump on social media.”
The court, after a marathon hearing of over four hours, reserved judgment on the recusal applications moved by Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai and Rajesh Joshi. On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others and pulled up the CBI, saying that its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
Story continues below this ad
The March 9 order by Justice Sharma, on CBI’s revision petition challenging the discharge of 23 accused in the liquor policy case, had stayed the departmental proceedings the trial court had directed against the CBI’s investigating officer in the case.
Submitting that the “court was very generous to ED since without a prayer made by them” it passed an order for deferring ED proceedings before the trial court, Kejriwal told the court: “We have analysed the criminal revision petitions pending before this court since MP/MLA roster was assigned” and said he “apprehends strong bias on political lines” against parties in “opposition of parties of this present government”.
“The trial court from November 3 to February 12 did day-to-day proceedings, read 40,000 pages worth of documents and then discharged us saying ‘investigation appears to have proceeded on a predetermined trajectory’. On March 9…when no other party was present apart from CBI… ex parte, without issuing notice, without hearing anyone… passed an order saying ‘prima facie this order appears to be erroneous’… I was really shocked and I started having doubts, serious apprehensions whether this court is biased and whether I will get justice,” Kejriwal argued before the court.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
