“Jab March 9 ka order aaya, mera dil baith gaya (When the March 9 order came, my heart sank).” With this, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal opened his arguments before the Delhi High Court on Monday, saying he had developed a serious apprehension that he might not receive a fair hearing in the excise policy case.
Appearing in person, the former Delhi CM urged Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to recuse herself from the matter, repeatedly stressing that he was not questioning her integrity, but only voicing a litigant’s fear.
'A pattern I cannot ignore'
Kejriwal told the court that over time, he had begun to notice what he described as a pattern in the judge’s orders in excise policy-related cases.
“Ek trend observe karne ko mil raha hai, every single averment of CBI and ED has been endorsed (A trend can be observed every single averment of the CBI and ED has been accepted),” he said, alleging that arguments made by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate were routinely accepted.
“Jab bhi wo argue karte hain, usko accept kar liya jaata hai, every prayer has been turned into a judgment (Whenever they argue, it is accepted, every request is turning into a final order),” he added.
Justice Sharma responded briefly: “This argument, I don’t understand.”
Yet Kejriwal pressed on, saying that in earlier proceedings, it felt as if the court had already formed an opinion.
“Aisa laga ki hame corrupt declare kar diya gaya, bas saza sunani reh gayi thi (It felt like we had already been declared corrupt, only the sentencing was left),” he said.
The moment that changed everything
At the centre of his plea was the High Court’s March 9 order, which stayed parts of the trial court’s February 27 decision discharging him and 22 others.
Kejriwal said the contrast between the two orders shook his confidence.
On one hand, the trial court had spent months hearing arguments and examining thousands of pages of records. On the other, he said that the High Court termed parts of that detailed order 'erroneous' after a very brief hearing.
“5-10 minute ki hearing mein itna bada order 'erroneous' declare kar diya gaya (In a 5–10 minute hearing, such a detailed order was declared erroneous). That was the most concerning thing for me,” he said.
He also pointed out that the order was passed ex parte.
“Bina hume sune, bina reply liye (Without hearing us, without taking our reply),” he pointed out, calling it a violation of natural justice.
Justice Sharma, however, made it clear that the manner in which the order was passed could not be questioned in a recusal plea, and could be challenged only before the Supreme Court.
Law is about apprehension, not proof
Kejriwal leaned heavily on legal principles to support his plea. Referring to a Delhi High Court ruling in the case of Satyendar Jain, he said even the ED had once sought recusal on the ground of apprehension and succeeded.
“Mere case mein bhi wahi baat hai, question is not about uprightness of the judge (My case is the same—the question is not about the judge’s integrity),” he argued.
He also cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ranjit Thakur v Union of India, saying the law did not require proof of actual bias.
“So the law is simple, it is not whether the judge is biased, but whether a litigant has a reasonable apprehension (The law is simple—it is about reasonable fear, not proven bias),” he said.
Findings that felt final
Kejriwal flagged earlier proceedings before Justice Sharma, including cases involving Manish Sisodia, where he claimed the court had made observations that went beyond what was necessary at that stage.
“Do hearings mein final judgment jaisa ho gaya (In just two hearings, it felt like a final judgment),” he said, pointing to findings on issues like approver statements.
He contrasted this with the trial court’s discharge order, which, according to him, found no evidence of corruption or kickbacks.
“Trial court ne kaha koi corruption nahi hua, aur yahan bilkul ulta view tha. Isi se shanka paida hoti hai (The trial court said there was no corruption, but here the view was completely opposite—that’s what creates doubt in my mind),” he said.
Beyond the courtroom
Kejriwal also referred to Justice Sharma attending events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), saying it added to his unease.
“Agar ek particular ideology ke programmes attend hote hain, mere mann mein doubt aata hai ki kya mujhe nyay milega (If programmes of a particular ideology are attended, it creates a doubt in my mind whether I will get justice),” he said.
The CBI opposed the plea, rejecting allegations of bias and arguing that attending such events did not indicate ideological leaning. It also said the judge had passed favourable orders for accused persons in the past.
Kejriwal, however, insisted that his concern was personal and limited.
“Ye mere aur court ke beech ki baat hai (This is a matter between me and the court),” he said.
What lies ahead
Throughout the hearing, Justice Sharma reminded Kejriwal that the court was only considering the recusal plea, not the merits of the case.
At one point, she asked him directly if he was alleging political bias. Kejriwal stopped short of that, returning instead to his central argument on apprehension.
As the matter continues, the court will have to decide whether a litigant’s fear—even if subjective—is enough to warrant a judge stepping aside.
For now, Kejriwal has made his position clear: “Mera doubt sach hai ya nahi, wo alag baat hai, par doubt hai (Whether my doubt is right or wrong is a separate issue but doubt exists).”
