By Arvind Kejriwal logic, no judge can hear cases against government, politicians: CBI opposes recusal plea

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Thursday filed its written submissions opposing the pleas filed by former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case.

CBI stated that if Kejriwal's argument that Justice Sharma should recuse from the case because her children are on the Central government's panel is accepted, all judges whose relatives are on the government panel would be disqualified from hearing cases related to such governments or political leaders.

"All learned Judges throughout the country will be disqualified to hear matters pertaining to such Government/s or matters of any political leader - small or big if their relatives are on any government panel of Central Government or State Government," the written statement filed by the CBI states.

It adds,

"Extending the logic of Shri Kejriwal further, all Honble Judges whose relatives are on the panel of either state government or central government or any Public Sector Undertaking will be disqualified from hearing the cases of the respective state governments, central government, or the concerned PSUs."

The CBI says that by Kejriwal's logic, even the law officer who marks cases to all panel lawyers will also be disqualified to appear before all such judges (whose relatives are on the government panel).

It contends that Kejriwal's filing of an additional affidavit (where he raised the issue of Justice Sharma's children being on the Central government panel) is an afterthought to "further malign the institution and the individuals to ensure bringing pressure upon this august institution".

The central government agency says that none of Justice Sharma's children dealt with or assisted anyone in the excise policy case before any court at any stage of proceedings or has been involved in the matter in any capacity whatsoever.

Further, on Kejriwal's argument that Justice Sharma should recuse from the case because she attended the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP) event, the CBI says that accepting it would mean that any judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court will be disqualified from taking up any matters of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief.

"The conduct of respondent no. 18 Shri Arvind Kejriwal and other applicants have made a larger issue of institutional integrity being compromised if such unscrupulous litigants are permitted to embarrass malign browbeat and pressurize the honble judges. The modus operandi of making wild allegations and misusing social media can be adopted by any litigant in any part of the country before any court starting from trial court to the supreme court," the CBI says.

The affidavit also states that an "orchestrated social media campaign" is being conducted against Justice Sharma and that her recusal would set a very wrong precedent.

Kejriwal had appeared in person before the Court on April 13 and argued his case. Later, on April 15, he filed an additional affidavit in the Court stating that the judge should recuse because her children are on the counsel's panel of the central government.

A trial court had on February 27 discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused in the Delhi excise policy case. The CBI challenged the order and the same is currently being heard by Justice Sharma.

On March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice in the matter and stayed the trial court direction for department proceedings against the CBI officer who investigated the case.

Justice Sharma also gave a prima facie finding that some of the observations made by the trial court in its order were erroneous. She further directed the trial court to defer the PMLA proceedings (which are based on the CBI's FIR).

Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai and Chanpreet Singh Rayat subsequently filed applications for Justice Sharma's recusal. It is their case that Justice Sharma's previous orders and the manner in which the case is being conducted reveal bias on her part and she should recuse from hearing the matter. They also highlighted how Justice Sharma had attended an event hosted by Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), the legal wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The CBI has opposed the plea and has refuted the allegations that Justice Sharma is ideologically associated with ABAP. Merely attending the seminar organised by ABAP is not an indicator of any ideological bias, the agency contended in its affidavit. The agency also pointed out that Justice Sharma has granted favourable orders to persons named in the excise policy case as well. It also objected to allegations that Justice Sharma is hearing the case in a hasty manner.

On April 13, Kejriwal appeared in person before Justice Sharma to argue his plea for the judge's recusal. He contended that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's orders and her conduct outside the Court has created reasonable apprehension in his mind about getting an impartial hearing before her Bench in the excise policy case.

Soon after the hearing, videos of his arguing before the Court went viral on social media. The High Court has issued directions for the takedown of such videos, stating that such unauthorised recording of court proceedings is not permitted.