Whatever CBI, ED argue is accepted by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma: Arvind Kejriwal argues in recusal plea

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Chief and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal told the Delhi High Court on Monday 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.

He was arguing the application filed by him seeking recusal of Justice Sharma from the Delhi excise policy case.

Kejriwal, appearing in person, told Justice Sharma that she has consistently passed orders in favour of Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the excise policy case.

He alleged that there was a trend is Justice Sharma' s orders of accepting every single argument by ED and CBI.

"Ek trend observe karne ko mil raha hai ki every single averment of CBI and ED has been endorsed (A trend can be observed that every single averment of the CBI and ED has been endorsed). Jab bhi wo argu karte hai to usko accept kar liya jaata hai aur order unke favour me pass hota hai (Whenever they argue, it is accepted, and orders are passed in their favour). Every prayer has been turned into a judgment," he said.

"This argument, I don't understand," Justice Sharma responded.

"CBI aur ED ne bola ye sab corrupt hain to court ne bola ye corrupt hain (The CBI and ED said that 'all of them are corrupt', and the court said 'they are corrupt')," Kejriwal claimed.

He also said that the well-reasoned order passed by the trial court on February 27 discharging him and other accused in the case after hearing the matter for three months, was partly stayed by Justice Sharma after very brief hearings.

"5-10 minute ki hearing m trial court order jo 3 maheene ki hearing ke baad aaya tha... Aapki jo finding approvers ke baare me, jab mera case aapke saamne aaya tha, aapne bola tha ki approver ke statements addmissible hain. Yha 5 minute ki sunwai ke baad aapne bola ki trial court ki findings approvers statements erroneous hain. That was the most concerning thing for me. (Translation: In a 5–10 minute hearing, the trial court’s order—which had come after three months of hearings… Your finding about the approvers—when my case came before you earlier, you had said that approver statements are admissible. Here, after just a five-minute hearing, you said that the trial court’s findings on the approver statements are erroneous. That was the most concerning thing for me," he argued.

Pertinently, he highlighted the recusal application filed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) few years ago in a money laundering case involving his Aam Aadmi Party colleague Satyendar Jain.

In that case, the ED's request for recusal was allowed on the ground that ED had an apprehension of bias; and not that the judge was not upright, Kejriwal said.

"I want to rely on Satyendar Jain v ED judgement of this court. Is case m bail ki sunwai chal rahi thi. 6 din ki sunwai ho chuki thi. Aakhri taarekh thi. Suddenly, ED has an apprehension. District Judge allows it. The matter comes to this court and the HC allows it. us case aur mere case m kaafi similiarities hain. Us case me court n kaha tha question is not about uprightness of the judge but apprehension in the mind of the litigant. Mere case bhi same hi hai. Here also question is not about the uprightness of the judge. (Translation: In that case, the bail hearing was going on. Six days of hearing had already taken place. It was the last date. Suddenly, the ED raised an apprehension. The District Judge allowed it. The matter came to this court, and the High Court also allowed it. There are many similarities between that case and mine. In that case, the court had said that the question is not about the uprightness of the judge, but about the apprehension in the mind of the litigant. My case is the same. Here also, the question is not about the uprightness of the judge," he said.

All that I am demanding is same parity as ED, especially when my apprehension is on much stronger ground, Kejriwal said.

He said the law as laid down in Satyendar Jain's case is of reasonable apprehension which the litigant may have about a judge hearing a case.

"So the law is simple. It is not whether the judge is actually biased but whether litigant has an apprehension," he stated.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, took strong objection to the arguments.

He said that the recusal applications were an attempt to instil fear in the judge and should be rejected sternly.

"Judges cannot respond. A motivated application for recusal needs to be dealt with sternly. This is what the Supreme Court has said, and that this tendency is growing. Fear is what the respondents are trying to instil. This recusal application should be rejected with the strictness it deserves. The other benches have also dealt with them and arrived at the same conclusion," the SG vehemently argued.

On the apprehension in the minds of the litigant, the SG submitted

"The contention is that some observation by your ladyship in previous rounds of litigation gives rise to apprehension in their minds. The question is, in what situation were those observations made? At that time, no one knew that someone would file a discharge application and that discharge application would be allowed in 7-8 days."

After a lengthy hearing which lasted for 4.5 hours, the judge reserved her verdict.

"In my life, for the first time, someone asked me to recuse. I have learnt a lot on the recusal jurisdiction. I hope I will give a good judgment," the judge said as the hearing drew to a close.

Background

A trial court had on February 27 discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused in the excise policy case.

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 returned 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 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

Hearing today

Kejriwal today said that the High Court stayed the trial court's discharge order ex parte after a 5-minute hearing.

"March 9 ko jab is case ki sunwai hui to CBI ke alawa koi maujud nahi tha. Ex parte, bina kisi ki sunwai kiye, pina kisi ka reply liye is court ne order pass kiya ki prima facie the order is errorneous. Jo order tiral court n pura pura din sunwai kar ke order paas kiya tha 40,000 pages ke documents padh ke us order ko is court ne 5 minute ki sunwai ke baad erroneous declare kar diya (Translation: On 9 March, when this case was heard, no one was present except the CBI. Ex parte—without hearing anyone, without taking anyone’s reply—this court passed an order stating that, prima facie, the order is erroneous. The order that the trial court had passed after a full day of hearing, after reading 40,000 pages of documents, was declared erroneous by this court after just a five-minute hearing," he said.

He further contended that he was very disappointed when he came to know about the March 9 order.

"Jab 9 March ka order aaya to mera dil baith gaya. I had serious apprehensions about bias. Isliye maine Chief Justice ko letter likha. Chief Justice sahab ne reject kar diya. after receiving the Chief Justice's letter maine ye application file kari (Translation: When the order of 9 March came, my heart sank. I had serious apprehensions about bias. Therefore, I wrote a letter to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice rejected it. After receiving the Chief Justice’s letter, I filed this application)," he stated.

He then proceeded to cite Supreme Court judgments on recusal.

"This is Ranjith Thakur v Union of India... Unhone saaf saaf kaha hai ki judge ko ye nhi dekhna hai ki wo biased nhi but agar party ke man m shanka hai bias ki to there is a case for recusal. That is why i am here before you personally. Ek meri chhoti si baat hai ki mere mind m jo apprehension hai that is between me and the court. CBI should not be made a party in this case (Translation: They have clearly said that a judge does not have to determine whether they are actually biased; rather, if there is an apprehension of bias in the mind of a party, then there is a case for recusal. That is why I am here before you personally. I have a small submission—that the apprehension in my mind is a matter between me and the court. The CBI should not be made a party in this case)," he said.

He then highlighted how Justice Sharma had rejected cases filed by Excise policy accused on 5 previous occasions.

"Is court ke saamne 5 pehle cases aa chuke hain. Mera case aaya tha arrest ko. Sanjay Singh, K Kavitha and Aman Dhall ke bail applications aaye the. Unme is court n jo observations diye the, they amount to judgements.(Translation: Five earlier cases have already come before this court. My case came regarding arrest. Bail applications of Sanjay Singh, K Kavitha, and Aman Dhall were also heard. The observations made by this court in those matters amount to judgments)," he submitted.

He also the Court gave a final opinion on many aspects.

"The Court was not required to give a final verdict on the reasons. It appears the court gave a final judgement on many of those points in just two hearing. Do hearings m final judgement kar diya gaya (It was decided as a final judgment in two hearings). Ek issue utha tha approver ka. Iske upar aapki finding hai... Ispe bhi ek final finding de di gayi thi. I was almost declared corrupt. I was almost declared guilty. Bas saza sunani reh gayi thi. (Translation: One issue that was raised concerned the approver. On this too, you gave a finding… A final finding was given on this as well. I was almost declared corrupt. I was almost declared guilty. Only the sentence remained to be pronounced)," he contended.

"I don't want to comment. That's what you think," Justice Sharma replied.

He then argued that the findings of the trial court in the discharge order was in stark contrast to what Justice Sharma had concluded when Kejriwal's case challenging his arrest had come up before her.

"The trial court has said there was no corruption, kickbacks, bribery. Koi Goa me paisa nhi le jaaya gaya. Jo recovery pe aapki finding hai uspe court ne likha hai...(Translation: No money was taken to Goa. On the issue of recovery, the finding you gave—on that, the court has written…)," Kejriwal contended.

"Aapki submission kya hai? Kyunki trial court ne maine bola hai usko galat declare kiya hai...Jis waqt maine faisla kiya us time is court (trial court) ka to faisla tha nahi. Uspe (trial court) ke order p ham tab jaaega jab wo decide karenge. Aaj ham sirf aapko recusal pe sun rahe hain (Translation: What is your submission? Because trial court has declared what I had earlier found as wrong… At the time when I made the decision, there was no order of this court (trial court). We will go into the trial court’s order when they decide it. Today, we are only hearing you on the issue of recusal)," Justice Sharma said.

"Trial court ne bola jis tarah CBI ne approvers banaye unka conduct was to prove a premeditated outcome. Finally, the trial court discharged me completely with completely contrary findings to this court to isliye man me ek shanka hai.(Translation: The trial court said that the way the CBI made approvers, their conduct was aimed at proving a premeditated outcome. Ultimately, the trial court completely discharged me, with findings that were entirely contrary to those of this court. Therefore, there is an apprehension in my mind)," Kejriwal replied.

He then highlighted similar observations made by Justice Sharma in Manish Sisodia's case.

"He (Sisodia) was declared guilty which was not necessary. There was one paragraph jaha pe kaha gaya ki ye saare log corrupt hai. Aesa laga ki hame sirf corrupt hi nahi maha corrupt declare kiya gaya (Translation: There was one paragraph where it was said that all these people are corrupt. It felt as if we were not just declared corrupt, but extremely corrupt)," Kejriwal stated.

Sisodia was declared corrupt by the Court but it was later set aside by the Supreme Court, Kejriwal said.

"Iss case me bas 3 hearing hui thi and a conclusion was drawn that Manish (Sisodia) is a very corrupt person (In this case, there were only three hearings, and a conclusion was drawn that Manish Sisodia is a very corrupt person). This case was set aside by the Supreme Court," he said.

"It was not set aside," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected.

The trial court has now found Sisodia completely innocent, Kejriwal said.

"Trial court ne Manish Sisodia ko puri tarah nirdosh paya. This shows that this court is totally committed to facts. To ab question ye hai ki kya is stage pe aa ke ye court badal paaega? (Translation: The trial court found Manish Sisodia completely innocent. This shows that the trial court is fully committed to the facts. So now the question is whether, at this stage, this court will be able to change its stance?)," he asked.

Kejriwal then pointed out that the entire case made out by CBI is based on approver statements.

"Kejriwal: CBI ka pura case sirf approver statements pe hai. 9 March ke order me aapne agar un statements pe question khada kar diya to practically you have rejected the entire trial court order (Translation: The CBI’s entire case is based only on approver statements. In the 9 March order, if you have raised doubts about those statements, then practically you have rejected the entire trial court order)," he said.

He questioned the urgency shown by Justice Sharma in passing the March 9 order.

"Us din [March 9] aapke saamne trial court ka record bhi nhi tha. What was the need or urgency [for this order]? Uski wajah se ek shanka paida hui (Translation: On that day [March 9], even the trial court record was not before you. What was the need or urgency for this order? Because of it, an apprehension arose)," he said.

Justice Sharma responded that Kejriwal as a litigant cannot, in a recusal application, question the urgency in which the order was passed. That issue can only be raised before the Supreme Court, she said.

"Ye toh aap question nai kar skte ki kya need thi. Ye aap mujhe mat batao maine order kaise likha ye aap Supreme Court ko bataoge (Translation: You cannot question what the need was. Don’t tell me how I wrote the order—you can tell that to the Supreme Court)," Justice Sharma retorted.

The March 9 order was a very generous order in favour of ED and that order was passed without following the principles of natural justice, Kejriwal said.

He also said that the remarks by the trial court were not against CBI but against the Investigating Officer.

"Trial court ke remarks were not against CBI. They were against the CBI Investigating Officer. He is not a party. He has not petitioned the court. CBI has come. CBI ke kehne pe IO ki proceedings ko rok dena bohot gehri shanka paida karta hai ( Translation: The CBI has come, and on its request, staying the proceedings against the Investigating Officer creates a deep apprehension)," he said.

Kejriwal said that as per Supreme Court judgments, a discharge order cannot be stayed unless there are exception circumstances.

"Hame bina sune the order was partly stayed (Without hearing us, the order was partly stayed). In my view, this is violation of the SC order. So it appears that most of the trial court order is mostly neutralised by the March 9 order," Kejriwal stated.

He then said that Justice Sharma was trying to expedite the case.

"Aapne apne order [March 9 order] me ye bhi likha that there was advance service hui thi, but we did not appear. In March 16, you have written we chose not to appear. Madam isse takleef hui. Ye case 4 saal se chal raha hai aur hum aapke saamne hain. The language used by this court also indicated a bias (Translation: In your order [the March 9 order], you also wrote that there had been advance service, but we did not appear. On March 16, you wrote that we chose not to appear. Madam, that caused distress. This case has been going on for four years, and we have been appearing before you. The language used by this court also indicated a bias," Kejriwal maintained.

He further said that he analysed other criminal revision petitions dealt with by Justice Sharma and the difference in speed in this case and other cases.

"We have analysed the way criminal revision petitions have been dealt with by this case. The speed at which this case is going and another case is going is speed se koi aur case nhi chal raha. ye dono case sabse prominent opposition political parties ke hain (Translation: We have analyzed the manner in which criminal revision petitions have been dealt with in this court. The speed at which this case is proceeding, and another case as well—no other case is moving at this pace. Both these cases involve prominent opposition political parties)," he said.

"Toh aap political bias bhi bol rahe hain? (Translation: So are you also alleging political bias)?" Justice Sharma asked.

Kejriwal then referred to the March 9 order and how it was passed on a defective petition filed by CBI.

"February 27 ko trial court ka order aaya. 4 ghante me CBI ne is court m appeal file kar di this. 500 page se zyada ki judgment hain. Court ne ek ek charge ko examine kiya hai aur fir detailed finding di hai. CBI ki appeal m kisi bhi finding ko le ke koi finding nhi hai. Is appeal ko pehle din hi dismiss kar dena chahiye tha. Wo defective hai. Us defective petition pe ek sweeping order paas kiya gaya (Translation: On 27 February, the trial court’s order was delivered. Within four hours, the CBI filed an appeal before this court. It is a judgment of more than 500 pages. The trial court examined each and every charge and then gave detailed findings. In the CBI’s appeal, there is no finding addressing any of those findings. This appeal should have been dismissed on the very first day. It is defective. Yet, on that defective petition, a sweeping order was passed," he said.

He then referred to Justice Sharma attending an event organised by an RSS affiliated body.

"Ek sangathan hain Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parisdha. Unke event ko your honour (the judge presiding) 4 baar attend kar ke aai thi. Unki jo ideology hain ham uske sakht khilaaf hain aur khul ke khilaaf hain. Ye case political hai (Translation: There is an organization, the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad. Your Honour (the presiding judge) has attended its events four times. The ideology they follow is something we strongly oppose, and we oppose it openly. This case is political," he said.

"If your honour is attending the programme of a particular ideology, then ek mere mind me apprehension paida hota hai (Translation: If Your Honour is attending programs of a particular ideology, then an apprehension arises in my mind," Kejriwal said.

"Ki main us ideology ko follow karti hu? (Translation: That I follow that ideology?)" the judge asked.

"Aapke 4 baar jaane se mere mind m apprehension paida hota hai ki will I get justice (Translation: Your attending four times creates an apprehension in my mind—whether I will get justice)," Kejriwal maintained.

He also referred to a statement by Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

"Abhi thode din pehle Home Minister Amit Shah ne ek statement diya ki HC se jo judgement aaega uske baad Kejriwal ko SC jaana padega (Translation: A few days ago, Home Minister Amit Shah made a statement that after the High Court’s judgment, Kejriwal would have to go to the Supreme Court," Kejriwal said.

"There is no pleading to that effect," SG Mehta objected.

"What control I have over what someone says?," the Bench asked Kejriwal.

"Ek old tradition thi ki judges ke near or dear ones agar kisi party se related hote the to wo judges us case se recuse kar jaate the (Translation: There used to be an old tradition that if a judge’s near or dear ones were connected to a party, the judge would recuse themselves from that case)," Kejriwal said in conclusion.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for Manish Sisodia, said that what needs to be examined is the bias of the litigant.

"The focus is not on the bias of the judgment but the apprehension in the mind of the litigant. This is more so because the trial court, in its detailed order, has contradicted this court on all these facts. The point of view in these matters is not that of a judge, it is of a man fighting for freedom. The point also is that after an apprehension is raised and my lady believes it is reasonable, is there a necessity to go ahead?" Hegde said.

Justice Sharma said that the common thread in all the recusal applications is apprehension of bias in the minds of the litigants due to her previous orders.

"The common thread in all the applications is that since I have given strong findings in the earlier orders, I can't detach myself... You are saying you are feeling that, and that it's not important what I feel, but what the applicants feel. Recusal is going to happen only on two grounds. The most important focus is that you are apprehending that I will not be able to do justice to you, that I am going to Adhivakta Parishad and giving them (CBI and ED) all the reliefs... I don't think we need to go to the trial court order for the recusal applications," the judge remarked.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for Vijay Nair, said that the view taken by the trial court in its discharge order stood in stark contrast to the view taken by the High Court.

"The discharge order is very peculiar. It's rare that the entire case is thrown out. This is in that sense a rare category of cases. Recusal is a peculiar jurisdiction. We, as legally trained minds, for the first time, are asked not ot view the matter from our lens. We really have to say the person before me, or the fair-minded public, has a reasonable apprehension based on the facts. Really speaking, on a lot of questions, the view taken by this court is opposite to what the trial court has taken," Farasat said.

There is a determination made in the March 9 order that the findings of the trial court were erroneous, Farasat claimed.

"It can give rise to an apprehension that the view taken by the court in earlier decisions (in the excise policy case) is flowing into this case," he said.

The Bench asked whether the March 9 order has been challenged before Supreme Court by Kejriwal and others.

"It's in defects. The defects have not been cured," SG Mehta replied.

Farasat then said that there was an error in March 9 order that the parties were served.

"It was probably an advance service on the trial court lawyers. It's not any service in the eyes of the law," Farasat said.

He also said that recusal in criminal cases stand on a more sensitive footing since it involves life and liberty issues.

"Recusal in criminal matters stands on a constitutionally more sensitive ground that civil cases because the person's rights under Article 21 are involved," he stated.

The counsel for Durgesh Pathak said that there is an apprehension of bias in the minds of general public.

"Neither my client nor anyone believes that the court will be biased. The only question is apprehension in the mind of the application and the general public. It's about the general public and what they are saying. This has an impact on my mental health," it was submitted.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for CBI, said that sending the matter to another Bench will set a bad precedent.

"It's very easy to say let this matter go to any other judge but look at the precedent it sets. the precedent it sets is that based on surmises and virtually maligning the bench, a litigant can choose the bench. The question is not weather my ladyship can hear the matter but if based on this judges started recusing, whether any judge would be able to hear the cases," the SG said.

He alleged that there is an ecosystem working to cast aspersions on the Bench.

"I will show why this is not erroneous simpliciter. There is an ecosystem working. Therefore it is not only for CBI to oppose but for bench to thwart any approach casting aspersion and create an atmosphere where the bench will have to succumb to pressure. The threshold of deciding recusal application is always considered to be at the highest level," he said.

He then referred to Kejriwal's argument on Justice Sharma's previous judgment against him

"Come to the first ground where he (Kejriwal) says I was virtually held guilty. Please see the order. The law required my lord to go into it. If my lord had not gone into it, the order would have been bad in law. We may succeed, we may lose but we have to be fair to the court," the SG said.

He said that the said order was challenged before the Supreme Court and was upheld but this was not highlighted by the applicants.

"The order of my ladyship (upholding Kejriwal's arrest), the reason to believe order passed by this bench, is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and none of them (applicants) pointed this. This is a clear suppression of facts. This is a constitutional court. We cannot take these things lightly," he stated.

He said that Justice Sharma had to go into the merits of the case in those previous orders since that is the mandate under law.

"Why did my ladyship go into it [the merits of the case]? Because the law requires my ladyship to. Under the mandate of the law, a Court has to go into it, every court goes into it. These are all tentative observations, and these observations have to be made in the absence of which the order becomes vulnerable," the SG contended.

On the violation of natural justice principles by Justice Sharma when passing the March 9 order, the SG said,

"The matter was listed for hearing on March 9, 2026. I will show that the HC rules permit that parties, lawyers who represented them can be served. They were served. The same counsel who were served are representing them now. See the order of March 9. Notice was issued. There was a specific application to stay the observation against the IO. The prayer was granted in that application... The ED trial is not a standalone trial. It has to have a predicate trial. In the absence of a predicate trial, ED trial cannot go on. The only consequence of this discharge order would have been that the ED trial would have met the same fate. I will show many orders which say that the ED matter may not be decided till we decide this. Your ladyship has not stayed. Your ladyship has only said that the ED proceedings be adjourned," he contended.

The SG maintained that the lawyers for the accused were served.

"All counsel who were served were the counsel of the respondents and are the counsel of the respondents even today. This is a valid way of serving. The very next he filed recusal application shows he was aware of the proceedings. It's a technical argument that we were not served but our lawyers were served. The registry of this court records that the lawyers were served," the SG said.

Regarding Justice Sharma attending Adhivakta Parishad conference, the SG said,

"Very fanciful submission of your ladyship, having attended the function of Adhivakta Parishad. First and foremost, your political views may be anything. Adhivakta Parishad is a bar association. If it is a bar association, the moot question would be if any honourable judge is invited by the bar association to speak on the subject of law, would the judge be justified in refusing. See the catastrophic impact of such a juvenile argument. Look at the judges from Supreme Court to this court who have attended the event of the Adhivakta Parishad, which is a bar association, and have spoken on issues of law. If my friend is serious about this, let him make a statement that the judges who have attended the events Adhivakta Parishad, then their order is wrong. One of the judges who granted him bail attended the function of Adhivakta Parishad. Look at the luminaries who attended the functions of Adhivakta Parishad."

He also rebutted the claim that the March 9 order was an ex-parte order. He also alleged that Kejriwal and others were resorting to delay tactics.

"Whatever interim order was passed was of such a nature that it would not cause any prejudice to anyone. Mr Arvind Kejriwal and Mr Sisodia move the Chief Justice to remove the matter from this bench. The Chief Justice passed an order rejecting it. The next date, two proceedings were filed. One was challenging the order of March 9, inter alia, on the ground that my ladyship had made some observation. I can make this statement that whenever an honourable court passed an order, it would have to say prima facie this has happened and therefore the interim order is justified. They moved the Supreme Court against this order and against the order of the Hon'ble CJ. When the matter was listed before this court next time, they sought adjournment on the ground that that petition are in Supreme Court. On that day, I had predicted that it will be kept in objections because the object was to delay the proceedings. And till today those petitions are under objections. They say writ petition has been withdrawn but nothing turns on that," the SG stated.

"The crux of your argument is that merely because they are saying recuse a judge should not recuse," the Bench asked.

"A lot of things is going the country. Many a times relatives of judges file appearance just to..These insinuations what the public is feeling, are the courts going to decide matters based on what they think public is feeling. They are the representatives of public? Merely because some people are saying something on social media. On social media you can criticise Donald Trump. The court should not go by what social media is saying," the SG underscored.

On the argument that the judge was dealing with the case in a hasty manner, the SG said that this was pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court.

"There is a direction from the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court order, MP/MLA cases stand on a different footing. I am saying that this should be dismissed and contempt action should be initiated," the SG said in conclusion.

The Court after hearing brief rejoinder arguments by the accused proceeded to reserve its verdict.

[Read Live Coverage]