New Delhi, April 13 (AHN) Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal told the Delhi High Court on Monday that he is “no longer an accused” in the alleged corruption case linked to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22, asserting that the trial court had already discharged him after finding no material to frame charges.

Appearing in person before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma while pressing his plea for the judge’s recusal from hearing the CBI’s revision petition against the discharge order, Kejriwal argued that the trial court—after day-to-day hearings spanning nearly three months and examining voluminous records—had passed a detailed order on February 27 discharging him and other accused, holding that no case was made out.

He contended that despite the detailed discharge order, the Delhi High Court, on March 9, passed an ex parte order partially staying the trial court’s findings after a brief hearing, which created a “grave and reasonable apprehension” of bias in his mind.

“When this order came, my heart sank. I had serious doubts whether I would get justice,” he said, adding that he had even written to Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya — master of the roster — seeking transfer of the case before filing the present recusal application.

Kejriwal argued that the principle governing recusal is not whether a judge is actually biased, but whether a litigant has a reasonable apprehension of not getting a fair hearing. “The law is simple — it is not about whether the judge is biased, but whether a litigant has an apprehension. I have that apprehension,” he told Justice Sharma, relying on Supreme Court precedents.

Referring to the March 9 order, he argued that the trial court’s detailed findings were termed “erroneous” without hearing the respondents or examining the full record. “A 500-page order passed after months of hearings was effectively set aside in a 5–10 minute hearing, without hearing us,” he said.

Kejriwal highlighted that the trial court had recorded findings that there was no evidence of corruption or kickbacks, and had even observed that the conduct of the investigation suggested a “premeditated outcome”. “The trial court has given findings completely contrary to earlier observations. That is why there is an apprehension in my mind whether I will get a fair hearing,” he added.

During the hearing, Justice Sharma repeatedly clarified that the present proceedings were confined to the issue of recusal and not the merits of the case. “What is your submission? Today we are only hearing you on recusal,” the judge remarked.

Kejriwal further argued that earlier observations made by the Delhi High Court during bail and related proceedings had “virtually declared him guilty,” even though such findings were unnecessary at that stage and were later set aside by the apex court. He also referred to the 2022 recusal instance in a case involving AAP leader Satyendar Jain, arguing that the Delhi High Court had accepted the Enforcement Directorate’s apprehension of bias in that matter.

“The question is not about the uprightness of the judge, but the apprehension in the mind of the litigant. I am only seeking the same parity,” he said.

The former Chief Minister also questioned the urgency with which the Delhi High Court entertained the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) revision plea, filed within hours of the trial court’s discharge order, and passed interim directions on the very first date.

Responding to some of the submissions, Justice Sharma observed that aspects such as the manner or urgency of passing orders cannot be examined in recusal proceedings and may be raised before the Supreme Court. “You cannot question how I wrote the order. That is for the Supreme Court,” the judge said.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the probe agencies, opposed the recusal plea and submitted that the threshold for such applications is well-settled. Referring to Kejriwal’s argument that he had been “almost declared guilty”, SG Mehta said the Delhi High Court was required to consider the legal framework governing such claims.

“Whether we win or lose, we must remain fair to the court,” the Centre’s second-highest law officer said, cautioning against lowering the dignity of the judicial process through unfounded allegations.

After hearing detailed submissions from all sides, the Delhi High Court reserved its verdict on Kejriwal’s plea seeking recusal of Justice Sharma, directing all parties to file short submissions not exceeding three pages by Wednesday.