New Delhi, April 20 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court announced on Monday that it will deliver its verdict today regarding the plea submitted by Arvind Kejriwal, the national convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). This plea seeks to have Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recused from hearing matters tied to the controversial Delhi Excise Policy case.

Initially, the ruling was set to be revealed at 4:30 p.m., but it has since been postponed to 5:30 p.m.

Earlier today, Kejriwal submitted a rejoinder affidavit in response to the written arguments presented by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which the Delhi High Court acknowledged as part of the official record.

During the proceedings, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma indicated that the decision would be made in the evening. This plea involves Kejriwal's request for Justice Sharma to withdraw from adjudicating cases related to the now-repealed Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22.

This case is particularly significant as the CBI has contested a trial court's decision to discharge Kejriwal and other defendants, including former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, concerning the allegations.

According to the causelist posted on the Delhi High Court's official site, Justice Sharma's single-judge Bench was originally set to announce the verdict at 2:30 p.m. However, following developments prior to lunch, the announcement has been moved to the evening.

During the April 13 hearing, Kejriwal, who appeared personally, argued his case for nearly 45 minutes, asserting that he is "no longer an accused" after the trial court found no evidence to substantiate charges against him.

He further expressed that a subsequent ex parte order from the Delhi High Court, which partially stayed the trial court's findings, created a "grave and reasonable apprehension" regarding the fairness of any future hearings.

“When this order was issued, I felt disheartened. I began to doubt whether I would receive justice,” Kejriwal remarked to Justice Sharma. He also noted that he had reached out to Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, the roster master, requesting a transfer of the case before filing the recusal plea.

Kejriwal emphasized that the principle behind recusal is rooted in a litigant’s reasonable fear of bias, rather than the existence of actual bias.

In response to his claims, Justice Sharma noted that issues concerning the urgency or manner of judicial orders should not be scrutinized in recusal hearings and should instead be brought before the Supreme Court.

Countering the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the standards for recusal are well-defined and warned against making claims that could tarnish the integrity of the judicial system.

“Regardless of the outcome, we must uphold fairness towards the court,” SG Mehta remarked.

The CBI, in its affidavit, characterized the recusal requests as "frivolous, unfounded, and contemptuous," claiming they aim to diminish the court's dignity and promote forum shopping.

The investigative agency asserted that the complaints presented by the applicants are "entirely vexatious" and lack any legitimate basis for recusal, stressing that fears of bias must be reasonable, not fanciful.

It also contended that judicial comments made during initial stages cannot be interpreted as evidence of bias and cautioned that granting such pleas would establish a perilous precedent.

In further written arguments, the CBI labeled Kejriwal’s supplementary affidavit submitted after the judgment reservation as a "belated afterthought" designed to "discredit institutions and pressure the judiciary."

The agency also refuted claims of a conflict of interest stemming from the inclusion of Justice Sharma’s family members as government panel attorneys, asserting that accepting such arguments would create an untenable scenario disqualifying judges nationwide from hearing cases involving governments.

After listening to comprehensive submissions from all involved parties, the Delhi High Court reserved its decision on the recusal request and instructed the parties to submit concise written arguments within the designated timeline.