CBI Opposes Kejriwal’s Plea, Says Judge’s Seminar Attendance No Ground for Recusal
Agency terms allegations “baseless,” says seminar attendance cannot imply bias or ideological leaning
New Dehi, Apr 09 : In a significant development in the liquor policy case, the Central Bureau of Investigation has opposed the plea filed by former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the matter in the Delhi High Court.
In its response, the probe agency argued that merely attending a legal seminar organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad does not establish any ideological bias or association. It maintained that the seminar in question was non-political in nature and therefore cannot be cited as grounds for questioning judicial impartiality.
The CBI further pointed out that several sitting judges, including the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, as well as other Supreme Court and High Court judges, have participated in similar events. Accepting such arguments, it said, would set a precedent requiring numerous judges to recuse themselves from cases involving politically exposed individuals.
Describing the allegations as “unscrupulous” and “sweeping,” the agency contended that such claims attempt to undermine the authority of the judiciary and interfere with the administration of justice, potentially amounting to contempt of court. It urged the High Court to dismiss the applications with heavy costs, terming them frivolous and vexatious.
Kejriwal, in his plea, had expressed apprehension over the fairness of proceedings, citing that Justice Sharma had previously ruled against the accused in multiple petitions related to the same FIR, including challenges to his arrest. Similar recusal requests have also been filed by AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak, along with other co-accused such as Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai.
However, the CBI asserted that adverse judicial findings cannot be construed as bias and accused the petitioners of engaging in “forum shopping.” It emphasized that Justice Sharma was assigned cases involving Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly by the Chief Justice, and such roster allocation cannot be altered based on individual requests.
The agency also highlighted that various courts, including the Supreme Court, have delivered rulings unfavorable to the accused in the case. Accepting the current plea, it argued, would disrupt the judicial process and lead to unnecessary recusal demands across multiple benches.
Stressing the importance of judicial independence, the CBI noted that recusal powers must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. It warned that entertaining such applications without substantive grounds could encourage litigants to engage in “bench hunting,” thereby destabilizing the adjudicatory system.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on April 13, where the High Court will consider the arguments presented by both sides before deciding on the recusal request.
