New Delhi, Mar 15: The Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, D K Upadhyaya, has declined a request by former chief minister and AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal and others to transfer CBI’s plea against their discharge in the excise policy case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another judge.
According to sources privy to the development, Justice Upadhyaya opined that Justice Sharma was hearing CBI’s petition against the trial court’s decision in accordance with the roster, and there was no reason to pass an order of transfer on the administrative side.
A call for recusal has to be taken by the judge concerned, the chief justice clarified.
The CBI’s petition is listed for hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday.
On March 11, Kejriwal, AAP leader Manish Sisodia, along with other accused in the excise policy case, made a representation to Chief Justice Upadhyaya to transfer CBI’s plea against their discharge from Justice Sharma to another “impartial” judge.
In the representation, Kejriwal claimed he has a “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension” that the hearing in the matter would not be impartial and neutral.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others and pulled up the CBI, saying its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
On March 9, Justice Sharma’s bench stayed the trial court’s recommendation on the initiation of departmental action against the CBI’s investigating officer in the liquor policy case.
Issuing notice to all 23 accused on CBI’s plea against their discharge, Justice Sharma said certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appeared erroneous and needed consideration.
Kejriwal claimed in the representation that his apprehension was based on Justice Sharma’s past conduct and said that on the very first day of the CBI’s revision petition against his discharge, she proceeded to record a prima facie view that the trial court’s detailed order was “erroneous”, even without hearing the other side.
Justice Sharma, Kejriwal’s representation contended, did not disclose any “specific perversity” when she stayed the trial court’s directions against the CBI official.
He also objected to Justice Sharma’s direction on deferring the trial proceedings in the connected ED case.
He submitted that Justice Sharma has decided multiple cases arising from the CBI FIR, including Kejriwal’s petition against his arrest and bail applications by AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh as well as Telangana Jagruti president K Kavitha, and “not even once” given relief to any of the accused.
The representation added that Justice Sharma, while dealing with these earlier pleas, has already recorded “elaborate prima facie observations accepting the prosecution theory on critical questions”.
It informed the chief justice that three of the judgements have been set aside by the Supreme Court and one has been referred to a larger bench.
In the representation, Kejriwal said the case against him was politically motivated and his request to transfer the pending matter to another judge was “not directed at any personal predilection, but at the objective test of reasonable apprehension in the mind of a fair-minded and informed litigant seeking justice”.
