CBI Opposes Recusal Pleas in Delhi Excise Policy Case, Calls Allegations Baseless

New Delhi, April 2026 : The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has strongly opposed recusal pleas filed by several accused, including Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convenor Arvind Kejriwal, seeking the withdrawal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Delhi excise policy case. The agency termed the applications “frivolous, baseless, and contumacious,” arguing that they lack any legal merit.

In a detailed affidavit submitted before the Delhi High Court, the CBI contended that the allegations raised by the applicants are “wholly vexatious” and appear to be an attempt to undermine the dignity of the judiciary. It maintained that such pleas, if entertained, could set a dangerous precedent encouraging “forum shopping” or attempts to seek a favourable bench.

The agency firmly rejected claims that interim observations made by the court indicated any “pre-determined mindset.” It clarified that remarks made during interim proceedings cannot be interpreted as bias or prejudice. According to the CBI, it is a well-established legal principle that such observations do not bind the court during final hearings and should not be misconstrued.

The CBI also pushed back against assertions regarding Justice Sharma’s alleged association with the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad. It described these claims as “unscrupulous and sweeping,” stating that mere attendance at a legal seminar does not establish any ideological or political bias. The agency warned that such allegations could amount to an attempt to scandalise the court and interfere with the administration of justice.

Further, the CBI argued that the recusal pleas selectively ignore instances where the same bench had granted relief to some of the accused, demonstrating judicial balance. “Passing of both favourable and unfavourable orders itself shows that there cannot be any apprehension of bias whatsoever,” the affidavit noted.

Emphasising legal standards, the agency said that any apprehension of bias must be reasonable and based on tangible grounds, not speculative or imaginary concerns. It stressed that recusal cannot be sought casually or “at the drop of a hat.”

The CBI reiterated that litigants do not have the right to choose the bench hearing their case. It underlined that the authority to assign cases lies solely with the Chief Justice, described as the “master of the roster.”

The matter gained traction after the Delhi High Court issued notice on April 6 on the recusal plea filed by Kejriwal, who appeared in person seeking transfer of the case. The court is currently hearing the CBI’s challenge to a trial court order that discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others in the alleged corruption case linked to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22.

The case remains a key legal and political flashpoint, with the High Court’s decision on the recusal pleas likely to influence the course of proceedings in the coming weeks.

(The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the Mavericknews30 team.)