New Delhi : The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Monday in the Delhi High Court opposed former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s application seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing its appeal against the trial court’s order discharging him and 22 others in the Delhi excise policy case, describing the development as “serious”.
Even as Justice Sharma issued notice in the application, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the agency, submitted that Kejriwal had levelled “frivolous, vexatious and contemptuous” allegations against the institution.
He further submitted that Kejriwal, who appeared in person to argue the recusal application before the Delhi High Court, should continue to appear personally in subsequent hearings as well, and not appear only once for “theatrics”.
“This is something very serious, and some people in this country make a career out of making reckless, baseless allegations, expecting them to be taken seriously. This is for the first time that this respondent has made baseless allegations against this august institution. It’s not only frivolous and vexatious, it is contemptuous also. This is something serious that has happened in the capital of this country,” the SG said.
Also Read | Delhi excise case: CBI opposes Kejriwal’s plea for Justice SK Sharma’s recusal
The law officer further submitted that objections raised in Kejriwal’s writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the case from Justice Sharma’s bench to another judge have yet to be removed.
It was also informed the court that, apart from Kejriwal, six others had also filed applications seeking similar relief, and any remaining parties intending to file similar applications should do so at the earliest.
‘I will avail my legal rights’: Kejriwal
However, Kejriwal, appearing in person before the court, submitted that he would argue the recusal application himself and informed the court that he had withdrawn his writ petition from the Supreme Court. “I have filed a recusal application. I will argue this (application) myself. I will avail my legal rights. As of now, I have not issued my vakalatnama to anyone,” Kejriwal said.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor, in his application — filed days after Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya on March 13 declined a request by Kejriwal and others to transfer the CBI’s appeal to another bench — alleged that there was a “grave, bona fide and reasonable apprehension” that the proceedings in the matter may not be conducted impartially or neutrally.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 others, concluding that the CBI’s material did not even disclose a prima facie case, let alone a grave suspicion.
In his 601-page order, special judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue also directed a departmental inquiry against the “erring investigating officer” who framed charges against the accused in the absence of material evidence, holding that the IO abused his official position to conduct an unfair investigation.
The agency had then approached the high court, assailing the trial court’s order on the ground that the verdict was passed by “ignoring” the evidence gathered by the agency, the findings were “inherently wrong”, and the agency collected several documents, examined witnesses, collected e-mails, WhatsApp chats and its evidence was not in the “air”.
The high court stayed till March 16 the trial court’s order directing departmental action against CBI’s investigating officer and observations against him, noting that the remarks were “prima facie foundationally misconceived, especially when made at the stage of charge itself”. The judge had also requested that the trial court defer the Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering case stemming from the CBI case and await the outcome of the CBI’s appeal against the February 27 verdict.
On March 16, the Delhi HC granted Arvind Kejriwal and 22 other accused time until April 5 to file their responses to the CBI appeal.
The matter will be next heard on April 13.