Delhi liquor policy case: After Mamata, Kejriwal to argue his own case; seeks recusal of Justice Sharma

New Delhi: After West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal on Monday will argue his own case in Delhi High Court seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from the hearing of appeal against him and others on their discharge in the liquor scam case.

Kejriwal and others, including former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, had earlier written to Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya seeking transfer of the appeal filed by the CBI from Justice Sharma's bench to an "impartial bench" but was denied.

AAP said Kejriwal and others, who were discharged by a special court here in the liquor scam case, have moved an application seeking Justice Sharma's recusal in the case and the party chief will argue the case.

Kejriwal, a former Delhi Chief Minister, arguing the case himself, will be the second instance in recent times of a top politician appearing before a court after Mamata argued before the Supreme Court in the case related to Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal.

In February, a special court had discharged Kejriwal and others in the case and pulled up the CBI by stating that its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.

In their letter earlier, Kejriwal and others had accused Justice Sharma of "bias" and demanded that the case should be heard by an impartial bench to ensure fairness and protect public confidence in the administration of justice.

They claimed several orders passed by the judge in the same matter have been overturned by the Supreme Court. They said they were making the request due to a "serious and genuine concern" that the matter "may not receive a completely impartial hearing".

According to the letter, an AAP statement earlier said, the CBI filed a petition of about 50 pages challenging the discharge order but did not point out any specific errors in the trial court’s findings or evidence that would justify setting aside the discharge order.

The letter said that the High Court issued notice and recorded a prima facie view that the trial court’s detailed order was erroneous without hearing the discharged accused.

The High Court also stayed the trial court’s observations and directions against the investigating officer, including directions related to possible departmental action, even though the CBI had sought only a limited stay, the letter claimed.

Sisodia had said the request for transfer is not based on any personal allegation against the judge but on the legal principle that courts must also consider whether circumstances could lead a fair minded litigant to reasonably perceive a possibility of bias.