New Delhi, April 6 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court issued notice on a recusal request submitted by AAP National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal, who appeared personally to request that the proceedings related to the alleged excise policy matter be handled by a different Bench, excluding Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

This development occurred during the hearing of a petition by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is contesting a trial court decision that discharged Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and other defendants involved in the corruption case associated with the now-repealed Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22.

Kejriwal began by informing the Delhi High Court of his application for Justice Sharma's recusal and requested its inclusion in the official record. He chose to represent himself in this matter.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, strongly opposed the recusal application, labeling the claims as “without merit” and “contemptuous.”

“Certain individuals in this country thrive on making allegations. This is the first instance where this respondent has brought forth unfounded claims against this esteemed institution. Such claims are not only trivial and vexatious but also contemptuous,” SG Mehta stated.

The government’s second-highest legal officer remarked that while the investigation agency had no issue with Kejriwal representing himself, he could not adopt a “hybrid” approach. “Should Mr. Kejriwal wish to argue personally, he must do so consistently. He cannot appear once for mere theatrics and allow his attorney to argue subsequently. This forum is not a stage for theatrics,” SG Mehta asserted.

He also pointed out that, apart from a few respondents, most—including Kejriwal—had not submitted their responses despite previous directives from the Delhi High Court. He warned that if the recusal requests were ultimately denied, it could lead to contempt proceedings.

In response, Kejriwal argued that according to procedural norms, a petitioner appearing personally cannot directly submit an application without the High Court's orders, hence he requested that his plea be officially recognized. He reaffirmed his intention to present the case himself.

Justice Sharma acknowledged the arguments and stated that notice would be issued regarding the application and directed that replies be submitted. The judge also mentioned that if any other party wished to file a similar recusal application, it could be submitted so they could all be addressed collectively.

The Delhi High Court has multiple related matters under consideration following the trial court’s February 27 ruling, which discharged all defendants, concluding that the evidence did not indicate a larger conspiracy in the creation of the now-defunct excise policy.

The CBI has disputed the discharge order, calling it “perverse,” while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is seeking the removal of negative comments made against it by the trial court.

Separately, Kejriwal has approached the Supreme Court to contest the Delhi High Court Chief Justice's decision to deny his request for the reassignment of the CBI's case from Justice Sharma's Bench.

In his writ petition submitted to the Supreme Court, Kejriwal criticized the communication from the Delhi High Court’s Registrar General, which stated that Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya—master of the roster—had rejected the request based on roster allocation.

The petition argued that the refusal to transfer the case raises a “serious, bona fide and reasonable apprehension” regarding the fairness and impartiality of the ongoing proceedings.

Kejriwal noted previous situations where bail was denied to certain defendants by Justice Sharma but subsequently granted by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, he has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) disputing specific remarks made by the Delhi High Court while considering the CBI’s revision request.