![\"'Almost](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-130234297,imgsize-1042501,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/kejriwal-delhi-high-court.jpg\" "\\"<p>.<\/p>\\"")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nAam Aadmi Party<\/a> national convener Arvind Kejriwal<\/a> appeared in the Delhi high court<\/a> representing himself for a plea for the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case. During the hearing, he laid out ten grounds to support his plea and argued that there exists a \u201creal grave and reasonable apprehension\u201d in his mind that he may not receive a fair hearing.Concluding his submissions shortly before the court rose for a brief recess, Kejriwal maintained that a series of judicial orders, courtroom observations and surrounding circumstances had created a perception of bias. The court, which is hearing only the recusal plea at this stage, repeatedly clarified that it would confine itself to the ten grounds cited by Kejriwal.Sure \u2014 here\u2019s your original content divided into ten clear subheadings, keeping all quotes and phrasing intact as in your draft:<\/p>\n During the hearing, Kejriwal pointed to what he described as a pattern in which \u201cevery single argument of ED CBI is endorsed by the court\u201d and \u201cevery prayer of ED CBI is converted into a judgment\u201d. He argued that this trend, observed across multiple earlier orders, contributed to his apprehension.<\/p>\n He also cited the speed at which certain proceedings were conducted, stating that no other matters were being heard \u201cat this speed\u201d, especially those involving \u201cthe most prominent political opponents\u201d. When the court asked, \u201cSo you are insinuating political bias?\u201d, Kejriwal responded by emphasising the impression such circumstances create rather than alleging personal bias.<\/p>\n Kejriwal further referred to an ex parte order passed on March 9, arguing that it stayed trial court proceedings without hearing all parties. \u201cIn the absence of the opposing party (an ex parte proceeding conducted without notice) this Court passed an order. Subsequently, following a hearing spanning five months, this Court declared that order to be prima facie erroneous,\u201d he said, questioning the urgency behind such intervention. The court responded that the manner in which an order is written cannot be questioned before it and is a matter for a higher forum.<\/p>\n Another key ground raised by Kejriwal related to earlier judicial observations. He argued that strong findings on issues such as approver statements and alleged corruption had already been recorded, which could influence future hearings. \u201cIt appears the court gave a final judgment in just two hearings,\u201d he said, adding that he had been \u201calmost declared guilty and corrupt\u201d in earlier proceedings.<\/p>\n He also objected to what he described as the extension of relief beyond what was formally sought. Referring to the March 9 prima facie order, he said that although it arose from a CBI petition, relief affecting Enforcement Directorate proceedings was granted based on an oral request. \u201cThe ED had nothing to do with it. Mehta ji just made a verbal demand,\u201d he argued.<\/p>\n Kejriwal additionally flagged the stay on proceedings concerning the investigating officer, noting that the officer had not sought such relief. \u201cThe IO is not even asking for it,\u201d he said, calling it a development that \u201craises deep doubts.\u201d<\/p>\n Among other grounds, Kejriwal cited the language used in court orders, alleged denial of adequate opportunity to file replies, and references in an order stating that parties had \u201cchosen not to attend\u201d, which he said left him \u201ca little sad\u201d.<\/p>\n He also raised concerns about not being granted a sufficient chance to file replies, arguing that such procedural denials impacted the fairness due to him.<\/p>\n He raised concerns about perceived ideological proximity, referring to the judge\u2019s attendance at events organised by a body he linked to the RSS. \u201cIf your honour is attending a program of a particular ideology, then it creates reasonable bias,\u201d he said, adding that he and his party strongly oppose that ideology. The court sought clarification on whether such events were legal or political in nature.<\/p>\n During the proceedings, Kejriwal emphasised that the issue was not the integrity of the judge but the perception of fairness. \u201cQuestion is not of the integrity of the judge, question is apprehension in mind of party,\u201d he said, relying on Supreme Court judgments to argue that reasonable apprehension alone can justify recusal. He also drew parallels with the case of Satyendar Jain, where a matter was transferred after apprehensions were raised, arguing that he was seeking similar parity.<\/div>\n\n1. Perceived endorsement of ED\u2013CBI arguments<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
2. Unusual speed of proceedings<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
3. Ex parte order of March 9<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
4. Prior judicial observations<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
5. Relief extended beyond formal prayer<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
6. Stay on proceedings concerning investigating officer<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
7. Language used in court orders<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
8. Denial of adequate opportunity<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
9. Perceived ideological proximity<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
10. Apprehension of fairness and integrity<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n