Delhi BJP President Virendra Sachdeva slammed Arvind Kejriwal after his recusal plea was dismissed, accusing him of politicising the judiciary. The Delhi HC ruled the plea was based on conjecture and lacked material evidence for bias.
BJP Slams Kejriwal’s ‘Politicisation of Judiciary’
Speaking to ANI, Sachdeva accused Kejriwal of violating the Constitutional dignity with what he called his “narrative” behind the plea. “Arvind Kejriwal’s problem is that he crosses boundaries with his overly clever style. He should understand that the court is a temple of justice, not a political arena… The narrative that Arvind Kejriwal tried to manufacture and made personal comments, it was a violation of Constitutional dignity,” Sachdeva said.
Echoing these sentiments, Delhi deputy chief minister Parvesh Verma welcomed the High Court’s decision, stating that the recusal plea move could only be expected from Kejriwal. “Arvind Kejriwal could only have been expected to take such a step that would raise questions about our judiciary. The man who used to question the army, the man who used to swear falsely on children, is now trying to subvert the entire system by questioning our judiciary,” he told reporters.
‘Accused Cannot Dictate Judges’: Verma
Verma further questioned the logic behind selecting judges, emphasising that petitioners cannot dictate the judges. “The court said that an accused cannot decide which judge will hear his case… Imagine the millions of cases pending in the country, whether they are in lower courts, High Courts, or the Supreme Court. If all the petitioners decide for themselves which judge will hear their case, what will happen to our system? Does Kejriwal want the court to approach him and ask which judge he wants to present his case before?” Verma questioned.
The BJP leader also claimed that there was a contradiction in his appeal, noting that while the accused claimed lower court decisions were honest, they objected to the High Court judge based on her participation in a past event. “The strangest thing here is that Kejriwal’s appeal claims that the lower court’s decision was absolutely correct and that the judge is completely honest. But now the woman judge before whom the appeal is filed in the High Court is not right because she attended an event where Kejriwal formed his perception of her, and based on that perception, the judge will rule against him,” he said.
High Court Dismisses Plea, Cautions Against ‘Theatre of Perception’
Earlier, the Delhi High Court dismissed Kejriwal’s plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case, holding that the allegations were based on conjecture and failed to meet the legal standard of a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Leading with sharp observations, the Court emphasised that “the courtroom cannot become a theatre of perception” and cautioned that even a powerful political figure cannot be permitted to cast aspersions on a sitting judge without material evidence. It held that the same standard of fairness applies when allegations are made against the judiciary and warned that entertaining such pleas would erode institutional credibility.
Justice Sharma noted that the applicants’ case was built on “insinuations and aspersions” rather than proof, and that accepting such arguments would set a dangerous precedent. The Court observed that a judge cannot be asked to recuse merely because a litigant apprehends an unfavourable outcome, stating that “justice cannot be managed through perception.”
Justice Sharma also highlighted that the plea had created a “catch-22” situation–if the Court recused, it would validate the allegations; if it did not, the outcome would still be questioned. Such tactics, the Court said, cannot be allowed as they risk undermining both the individual judge and the institution at large.
Kejriwal’s Allegations of Bias
Kejriwal had alleged a perceived conflict of interest arising from the empanelment of the judge’s children as Central Government counsel and argued that this creates a reasonable apprehension of bias. He also stated that he was unable to file a rejoinder after leaving the courtroom with permission while proceedings continued. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)