Excise case: Delhi HC takes on record Arvind Kejriwal's new affidavit seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

The Delhi High Court on Thursday agreed to take on record a new affidavit filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal to bolster his plea for the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case.

Kejriwal appeared in person today before the Court to urge it to examine this affidavit, after the Registry said that the Court's permission was needed before the affidavit could be taken on record.

The Court proceeded to take on record Kejriwal's latest affidavit, which called for Justice Sharma's recusal on the ground that her children were empanelled as counsel for the government of India.

The Court had already reserved a verdict on Kejriwal's recusal plea earlier this week. Today, the judge made it clear that the new affidavit being taken on record would not mean more hearings would be held.

"We are taking it on record. The registry will take it on record. Please file it through electronic mode. The copy (of the CBI's written submissions) may be given to the other side. This matter is reserved. I am not reopening it," Justice Sharma said.

Kejriwal appeared through video conference today.

"I want to file an additional affidavit. I have already filed it in the registry, but they need the court's permission to take it on record," he told the Court.

Solicitor General of India (SG) Tushar Mehta represented the Central Bureau of Investigation.

"The request was made and declined. But I have no difficulty. We will file our written submissions," SG Mehta submitted.

"The written submissions may be shared with us too," Kejriwal added.

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 Judge 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.

More recently, Kejriwal filed an affidavit flagging concerns that Justice Sharma's children are panel counsel for the Central government, and that cases are allocated to them for arguing by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represents the CBI in the excise policy case.

This gives rise to a "direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest", the affidavit said. This is the affidavit that was taken on record today by the Court.

[Live coverage]