New Delhi, April 8 (IANS) The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has opposed the recusal pleas filed by several accused, including AAP Convenor Arvind Kejriwal, who sought the withdrawal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Delhi excise policy case, describing the applications as “frivolous, baseless, and contumacious”.

In a detailed reply filed before the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, the central probe agency contended that the allegations are “wholly vexatious” and amount to an attempt to “lower the dignity of the Court”.

“Prayer for recusal of an Honourable Judge… based on frivolous and baseless averments and grounds is nothing short of being contumacious,” the CBI said in its affidavit.

It added that the allegations levelled by the applicants do not disclose any legally sustainable ground warranting recusal and cautioned that entertaining such pleas would set a dangerous precedent encouraging “forum shopping”.

Refuting allegations that certain interim observations indicated a “pre-determined mindset”, the central agency said that judicial remarks made at the interim stage cannot be construed as bias.

“It is well settled that observations made while passing interim orders do not bind the court at the stage of final hearing and can never be a source of bias,” the affidavit said.

The central probe agency also said that the recusal pleas effectively seek to lay down an untenable rule that any court granting interim relief must step aside from further hearing the matter.

Responding to claims regarding the judge’s alleged association with Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Parishad, the CBI described such assertions as “unscrupulous and sweeping”.

“Attending a legal seminar can never be a ground for recusal when the topic of the seminar was not a political one, therefore it does not demonstrate any ideological association,” the reply said, adding that such allegations amount to an attempt to scandalise the court and interfere with the administration of justice.

The CBI cautioned that accepting recusal pleas on the basis of prior judicial orders would undermine the rule of law and lead to bench hunting.

It further said that the recusal pleas suppress material facts, including instances where reliefs were granted by the same Bench to certain accused persons.

“Passing of both favourable and unfavourable orders… itself shows that there cannot be any apprehension of bias whatsoever,” the central agency said.

It stressed that apprehension of bias must be “reasonable and not imaginary”, and that recusal cannot be sought “at the drop of a hat”.

The CBI said that no litigant has a right to seek a Bench of their choice, reiterating that the power to constitute Benches lies exclusively with the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the “master of the roster”.

“No party has the right to be heard by a bench of its own choice,” the central agency added.

The development comes after the Delhi High Court on April 6 issued notice on a recusal application moved by Kejriwal, who appeared in person and sought transfer of the matter from the Bench of Justice Sharma.

The Delhi High Court is currently hearing the CBI’s plea challenging a trial court order discharging Kejriwal, former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and others in the alleged corruption case linked to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22.

–IANS

pds/khz