Delhi HC Chief Justice Refuses to Transfer CBI Plea Against Discharge of Kejriwal, Others
New Delhi: Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya rejected a plea by former chief minister and AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal and others to transfer the argument against CBI’s dismissals in the excise policy case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another judge.
According to sources familiar with the development, Justice Upadhyaya stated that Justice Sharma heard the CBI’s petition against the trial court’s order in accordance with the list and found no reason to issue a transfer order on the administrative side.
The chief judge declared that the judge concerned should call for recusal.
The CBI’s petition was listed for hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday.
On March 11, AAP leader Manish Sisodia Kejriwal, along with other accused in the excise policy case, filed a representation with Chief Justice Upadhyaya to transfer the CBI’s plea to their dismissal from Justice Sharma to another “impartial” judge.
In his submission, Kejriwal claimed that he had a “serious, bona fide and reasonable apprehension” that the hearing on the matter would not be impartial and impartial.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others and struck out the CBI, saying their case could not survive judicial scrutiny and was totally discredited.
On March 9, Justice Sharma’s bench withdrew the trial court’s recommendation to initiate departmental action against the CBI’s investigating officer in the liquor policy case.
Justice Sharma, who issued notice to all the 23 accused about the CBI’s plea against their release, said prima facie some of the observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges appear erroneous and need to be taken into account.
Kejriwal, in his statement, alleged that his arrest was based on Justice Sharma’s past conduct and said the CBI, on the first day of the revision petition against his removal, had recorded a prima facie view that the trial court’s detailed order was “erroneous”, even without hearing the other side.
Kejriwal’s lawyer, Justice Sharma, argued that the court had not disclosed any “particular perversion” while withdrawing its directions against the CBI official.
He also objected to Justice Sharma’s order to postpone hearing proceedings in the connected ED case.
He noted that Justice Sharma had disposed of many cases arising out of the CBI FIR, including Kejriwal’s petition against his arrest and bail applications of AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh as well as Telangana Jagruti chief K Kavitha, and relief was not granted “not even once” to any of the accused.
The representation added that while dealing with these earlier pleas, Justice Sharma had already noted “detailed prima facie observations accepting the theory of prosecution on critical questions”.
He informed the presiding judge that three of the decisions were annulled by the Supreme Court and one was sent to a larger bench.
In the representation, Kejriwal said that the case against him was politically motivated and his request to transfer the pending case to another judge was “not directed towards any personal preference but towards the objective test of reasonable apprehension in the mind of a fair-minded and informed litigant seeking justice”.
