Justice Sharma of Delhi HC to pass order on Kejriwal's plea for her recusal at 4:30 pm

Delhi High Court judge Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday said she would pronounce her verdict at 4:30 pm on pleas moved by Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking her recusal from the liquor-policy case, as she took on record additional pleadings from the AAP chief on his plea. Justice Sharma said although the pronouncement was scheduled for 2:30 pm, she was ''going out of her way'' in accepting Kejriwal's rejoinder as a written submission in the matter. The former chief minister virtually appeared before the judge through video-conferencing and urged her to take on record his rejoinder to the written submissions filed by the Central Bureu of Investigation (CBI). Even as Kejriwal asserted that the registry's refusal to take his rejoinder on record was ''miscarriage of justice'', Justice Sharma remarked that since he was not being represented by a lawyer, the court went ''out of its way'' for him when it allowed him to file his additional affidavit last week, even after the order on the recusal issue was reserved. The judge said according to the registry's rule, a party in-person must take permission from the court to file anything and since the present case is not ''extraordinary'', the same practice is being followed. She added that in law, there is no concept of filing a ''rejoinder'' to the opposite party's written submissions and she would allow Kejriwal to tender his pleadings as written submissions instead, so that he does not feel that he was not heard. ''You say you have respect for me. I have respect for every litigant. The rule of court will not be changed for anyone, so I will treat it as written submissions. I am taking it on record. I am giving the indulgence to Mr Kejriwal,'' the judge said. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared in the court for the CBI and opposed Kejriwal's request to file a rejoinder. Mehta said nowhere in the country are pleadings taken on record after an order is reserved by a court. He also said there is no concept of filing a rejoinder to a written submission and the court should do what it would do for any ordinary litigant. In his latest filing, Kejriwal has said the CBI has not disputed that Justice Sharma's children are on central government panels and receive work marked through the ''solicitor general-led litigation structure''. Once these facts are admitted, the prosecution cannot be allowed to evade the legal consequences and all insinuations by the CBI against him are wholly irrelevant, the former Delhi chief minister has asserted. Emphasising that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader has the highest regard for the Indian judiciary, the rejoinder has asserted that the federal agency has failed to justify the conflict-of-interest and apprehension-of-bias submissions in the case, and its narrative about ''institutional integrity'', ''anarchist practices'', ''social-media campaign'', ''browbeating'' and ''pressurising judges'' is wholly irrelevant and scandalous. ''Instead of meeting the substance of the conflict-of-interest plea, the CBI has chosen to resort to speculation, imputation of motives, rhetorical alarmism and scandalous allegations against the applicant, all of which are extraneous to the limited issue that arises for consideration. It is very unfortunate that the CBI is willing to malign the entire judiciary in order to have this matter heard before only one Hon'ble judge,'' Kejriwal has alleged. He has raised several objections against the judge hearing the CBI's plea against his discharge in the liquor-policy case, including that she had earlier denied him relief on his petition challenging his arrest and refused to grant relief on the bail pleas of other accused, including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha. Kejriwal has also claimed that Justice Sharma had made ''strong and conclusive'' findings. The former Delhi chief minister has further alleged a ''direct conflict of interest'', claiming that the judge's children are empanelled central government lawyers who receive work through the solicitor general, who is appearing in the court for the CBI. Besides Kejriwal, the applications for the judge's recusal have also been filed by AAP leaders Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak. Other respondents, including Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai, have also sought her recusal. Mehta had earlier urged Justice Sharma to initiate contempt action against Kejriwal and the others for seeking her recusal. Terming the concerns raised by Kejriwal and others as ''apprehensions of an immature mind'', the solicitor general had told the court that it was a matter of ''institutional respect'' and that Justice Sharma should not succumb to pressure as her recusal on ''unfounded allegations'' would set a bad precedent. On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the Delhi liquor-policy case, saying the CBI's case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.