The Central Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday opposed applications filed by Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recuse herself from hearing the agency’s challenge to their discharge in the Delhi liquor policy case, Live Law reported.

In its response before the Delhi High Court, the CBI argued that the judge’s decision to attend a legal seminar organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyers’ organisation linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, cannot be treated as evidence of ideological bias.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is the parent organisation of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

Kejriwal, along with Aam Aadmi Party leaders Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak, and other persons accused in the matter including Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai, have sought that the judge recuse herself because of the grounds of a reasonable apprehension that she lacks impartiality, The Hindu reported.

Their plea cited previous rulings by Sharma in related cases as proof of bias.

The CBI argued that the claim was untenable, adding that if attending events shows ideological bias of any judge, “then [a] large number of sitting High Court and Supreme Court judges would have to recuse [themselves] from hearing any case where politically exposed persons are accused”.

It further described the allegations of bias as “unscrupulous” and “sweeping”, and said that they amounted to an attempt to scandalise and lower the authority of the court.

It also submitted that judicial decisions taken by a judge in earlier proceedings cannot be used to allege bias, warning that such arguments could encourage “forum shopping or selection of benches by parties”.

The CBI stated that adverse or favourable judicial orders are part of due process and do not indicate prejudice. It added that Sharma had, in some instances, even granted relief to persons accused in the case.

“The judiciary’s independence and the ability of judges to render fair judgements must be preserved without external pressure or unfounded allegations,” Live Law quoted the central agency as saying.

It added that allowing litigants to dictate the composition of the bench would undermine the “foundation of justice” and risk eroding public confidence in the judicial system.

Addressing concerns about the pace of proceedings, the agency said that cases involving MPs and MLAs are being heard expeditiously in line with Supreme Court’s directions.

It noted that multiple hearings in a short period reflected this mandate rather than any undue haste.

The matter will be heard next on Monday, Bar and Bench reported.

The case

The CBI had alleged irregularities in the Delhi government’s liquor excise policy, which has since been scrapped. Based on the CBI case, the Enforcement Directorate also launched an investigation into allegations of money-laundering.

The policy came into effect in November 2021. It was withdrawn in July 2022 with Vinai Kumar Saxena, the Delhi lieutenant governor at the time, recommending an investigation into the alleged irregularities of the policy.

The two central agencies alleged that the Aam Aadmi Party government at the time modified the liquor policy by increasing the commission for wholesalers from 5% to 12%. This allegedly facilitated the receipt of bribes from wholesalers who had a substantial market share and turnover.

On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 others accused by the CBI in the case. There was no overarching conspiracy or criminal intent in the excise policy, the Rouse Avenue Courts had ruled.

The trial court also criticised the central agency for implicating Kejriwal without any cogent material. It said that the chargesheet had several gaps not supported by any witnesses or statements.

However, the High Court on March 9 stayed the adverse observations made by the trial court about the CBI. The matter was heard by Sharma, who prima facie observed that the trial court’s findings were erroneous.

Kejriwal had written to the chief justice of the High Court seeking the transfer of the case from Sharma to another judge, but the request was declined. The former Delhi chief minister had contended that no specific reasons had been recorded for commenting against the trial court’s order.

He also noted that the judge had earlier denied bail to several persons accused in the case who had been subsequently granted relief by the Supreme Court.

The Aam Aadmi Party chief sought the transfer on the ground of a “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension that the matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality”.