CBI Opposes Kejriwal's Recusal Plea as Frivolous and Vexatious
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has strongly opposed a plea by former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the liquor policy case, labeling the applications as frivolous, vexatious, and baseless. In a reply filed before the Delhi High Court, the probe agency argued that this move is an attempt to undermine the dignity of the court.
Recusal Applications Based on Conjectures and Surmises
CBI stated that the recusal applications by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief and his colleagues are grounded in conjectures and surmises, failing to meet the minimum legal threshold required to question judicial impartiality. The agency emphasized that mere dissatisfaction with interim observations or orders cannot serve as a valid ground for seeking a judge's recusal.
Warning against such practices, CBI cautioned that entertaining such pleas could encourage bench hunting and erode judicial independence. It clarified that observations made at the interim stage are tentative and not binding during final adjudication, and thus cannot be construed as bias.
CBI Counters Grounds for Recusal
The agency also addressed specific reasons provided by Kejriwal and others for seeking recusal. It pointed out that Justice Sharma's attendance at a seminar organized by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad should not be viewed as an ideological association. CBI highlighted that several Supreme Court judges, including Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and numerous high court judges have attended functions by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh-affiliated confederation of lawyers.
If the ground for Sharma's recusal is accepted, CBI argued, all these judges would have to disengage from hearing any case involving politically exposed individuals as accused. This, the agency contended, would set a dangerous precedent and disrupt the judicial process.
Kejriwal's Claims and Broader Implications
Kejriwal filed his application for recusal, claiming a grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension that the hearing before Justice Sharma would not be impartial and neutral. His plea noted that she has heard multiple cases arising from the CBI FIR, including Kejriwal's petition against his arrest, and has never granted relief to any of the accused.
In addition to Kejriwal, similar recusal applications were filed by AAP colleagues Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak, as well as other respondents such as Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai.
CBI further argued that different judges of the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court have rendered adverse findings in the liquor policy case. If Kejriwal's contention were accepted, all these judges would have to recuse themselves, potentially paralyzing the judicial system and delaying justice.
The agency's stance underscores the importance of maintaining judicial integrity and preventing frivolous challenges that could compromise the independence and efficiency of the courts.
