Former Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener Arvind Kejriwal appeared in person before the Delhi High Court on Monday to argue his petition in the excise policy case. Representing himself before the bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, Kejriwal raised significant objections to the prosecution's narrative. During the proceedings, he also moved a recusal application, requesting the judge to step away from hearing the matter, citing concerns over previous judicial observations.
Personal Representation and Recusal Plea
In a rare move, Arvind Kejriwal chose to argue his own case instead of relying solely on legal counsel. He submitted a 'recusal' petition before Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, arguing that certain findings in previous orders had already labeled him and his colleagues as corrupt, while kejriwal contended that such observations might impact the neutrality of the current proceedings, especially since the trial court had previously granted him relief which was later stayed by the High Court.
Challenge to CBI's Reliance on Approvers
The core of Kejriwal's argument centered on the lack of physical evidence in the CBI's investigation. He stated that the entire case is built upon the statements of approvers rather than material proof. Kejriwal alleged that the ED and CBI conducted numerous raids but failed to recover any incriminating funds. He argued that the agencies used a pattern of arresting individuals and then 'bargaining' for statements to implicate him, a practice he claimed was noted by the trial court.
Contradiction Between Trial and High Court Findings
Kejriwal highlighted what he described as a stark contradiction between the trial court's observations and the High Court's earlier stance. He pointed out that the trial court had recently observed that no crime or bribery had been established and that the conduct of the CBI appeared to follow a pre-conceived narrative. Kejriwal questioned whether the High Court would be able to shift its perspective given its previous strongly-worded orders against him in the same case context.
Reference to Manish Sisodia's Supreme Court Relief
During the hearing, Kejriwal drew parallels with the case of former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia. He mentioned that despite similar allegations of corruption and money laundering, the Supreme Court eventually granted bail to Sisodia. Kejriwal argued that the apex court's intervention proved that the initial assumptions of guilt weren't sustainable. He emphasized that the trial court had found Sisodia innocent of the primary charges, which should reflect on the overall merits of the excise policy case.
Objections to the March 9 Judicial Order
Kejriwal also raised concerns regarding an order passed on March 9, which stayed trial court proceedings against the Enforcement Directorate (ED). He argued that the order was passed based on an oral prayer by the Solicitor General in a criminal revision petition where the ED wasn't even a direct party. Kejriwal stated that he continues to stand as an accused in the ED case and alleged that the investigative process has been biased, while the court noted his points while maintaining that the current focus remains on the recusal application.