On Monday, 6 April 2026, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal appeared in person before the Delhi High Court to seek the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing a CBI petition. The CBI is currently challenging a trial court order that discharged Kejriwal and 22 others in the alleged excise policy scam.
Kejriwal, representing himself, expressed a “reasonable apprehension of bias,” citing previous observations made by the judge against the trial court’s findings. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, opposed the plea, labelling the allegations “frivolous” and “vexatious.” The court has issued a notice to the CBI and scheduled the next hearing for Monday, 13 April.
A Personal Plea for Judicial Neutrality
Stepping away from his usual legal team for this specific application, Kejriwal informed the court that he intended to argue the matter personally, stating he had not issued a vakalatnama (authorisation) to any advocate for this plea.
“I have prepared to argue today or any other day,” Kejriwal noted, explaining that he appeared in person because e-filing for “petitioners in person” requires specific court permission.
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised concerns over the “theatrics” of personal appearances and noted that seven similar recusal applications had been filed by different accused persons. “Some people in this country make a career out of making serious allegations against the institution,” Mehta remarked, asserting that the central agency would stand by the integrity of the court.
The Road to the Recusal Application
The legal friction stems from a February 27 trial court ruling that discharged all 23 accused, including Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, while severely criticising the CBI’s investigation. However, when the CBI challenged this discharge, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stayed the trial court’s “scathing remarks” against the investigating officers, calling them “prima facie erroneous.”
Following this, Kejriwal first approached the High Court Chief Justice on the administrative side to transfer the case, and later moved the Supreme Court.
After those attempts did not result in a transfer, the current judicial application for recusal was filed, based on the argument that the judge’s prior comments could impact the impartiality of the ongoing revision plea.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
At The Logical Indian, we believe that the “appearance of justice” is as vital as justice itself. A fair trial is the bedrock of a democracy, and when a stakeholder expresses a bona fide concern regarding judicial neutrality, it must be addressed with the utmost transparency to maintain public faith in the institution.
While legal battles are often framed as political spectacles, we urge all parties to prioritise a decorous dialogue that respects the sanctity of the judiciary. Justice should not only be impartial but must also be seen to be so, ensuring that the process remains untainted by personal or institutional friction.
VIDEO | Former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal arrives at Delhi High Court in liquor policy related case.
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) April 6, 2026
(Full video available on PTI Videos – https://t.co/n147TvrpG7) pic.twitter.com/bisqjf9bQ7
