The Delhi High Court has officially documented a new affidavit submitted by Arvind Kejriwal, the chief of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), who made another personal appearance before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on April 16. During this session, Kejriwal sought to have his additional affidavit accepted as part of the hearing concerning the ongoing excise policy case. The court agreed to his request and took the affidavit on record.

In his affidavit, Kejriwal raised concerns regarding a perceived conflict of interest, particularly pointing to the empanelment of the judge’s children as legal counsel for the Central Government. This situation has sparked apprehensions about potential bias in the case, which has key political implications.

While acknowledging the formalities of the legal process, Kejriwal stressed that fairness must be maintained, especially given the politically sensitive nature of the case, which involves central agencies pursuing charges against opposition leaders.

Contentions Regarding Court Proceedings

During the court session, Kejriwal informed the judge that he had been granted permission to leave the courtroom after delivering his arguments. However, he noted that subsequent proceedings extended beyond normal hours and prevented him from replying to additional submissions made later. He articulated that this disruption hindered his right to a fair hearing.

In his renewed affidavit, he pointed out that the system of assigning legal work by the government creates a reasonable fear of conflict of interest. He stated that significant government cases are often allocated to panel lawyers based on decisions made by top law officials, such as the Solicitor General, thereby insinuating a connection between the prosecution and personal professional engagements within the judge’s family.

Referencing information obtained via a Right to Information (RTI) request, he claimed this ongoing relationship had implications for fairness, as numerous government cases have been assigned to these panel lawyers over the years, indicating a consistent professional tie with the Central Government.

Arguments from the Prosecution and Defence

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), opposed the request for recusal. He dismissed the plea as frivolous, arguing that it could set a precedent allowing litigants to influence judicial appointments. Mehta also contended that prior observations made by the court were preliminary and formed in a different context.

Senior Advocates Sanjay Hegde and Shadan Farasat, defending their own clients in the case, argued that the situation ought to be assessed from a reasonable person’s viewpoint. They expressed concern that earlier remarks made by the court could unintentionally suggest a bias among the parties involved in the proceedings.

This case concerns the Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22, with the CBI appealing the trial court’s decision to discharge Kejriwal, along with his associate Manish Sisodia and others. The High Court has yet to announce its decision regarding the plea for recusal.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share