Delhi High Court Judge Tejas Karia recuses himself from Kejriwal hearing!

Delhi High Court Judge Tejas Karia on Wednesday recused himself from hearing a PIL filed against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal and members of other political parties.

The petition was filed accusing him of allegedly recording and broadcasting audio and video clips of the court proceedings during the hearing of a ‘recusal plea’ filed by former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy case. The case was listed before a bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia on Wednesday.

After Justice Tejas Karia recused himself from hearing the case, a bench headed by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay directed that the PIL filed by lawyer Vaibhav Singh be listed for hearing by another bench on Thursday.

The petitioner alleged that the audio and video clips of the court proceedings held before Justice Swarnakanta Sharma on April 13 were created and disseminated “as a deliberate and calculated strategy and with an intention to tarnish the image of the court and mislead the general public”. According to the petition, Kejriwal got the opportunity to appear in person after getting permission from the Delhi High Court.

During this, he argued his own recusal petition for about 45-50 minutes, after which the recording of the proceedings was widely spread on social media platforms.

The petition states that the circumstances under which the audio/video recording of the court proceedings was made were shared and posted by various political leaders. This shows a deep conspiracy between Arvind Kejriwal and various leaders of Aam Aadmi Party.

The aim of the conspiracy is to malign the image of this prestigious institution and mislead the common people of this country. The petition also alleged that many political leaders spread the video online. Also made comments supporting Kejriwal and raised questions on Justice Sharma.

The petition specifically mentioned the post of Congress leader Digvijay Singh, who described Kejriwal’s arguments as “very courageous” and suggested Justice Sharma recuse himself from the case. This was one such social media post, which was also reposted by Kejriwal.

The posts of AAP leaders Saurabh Bhardwaj, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and others have also been mentioned in the petition. It has been alleged that court proceedings were shared with “misleading comments” to influence public opinion.

Arguing that such actions violate the “Video Conferencing for Delhi High Court Rules, 2021” and “Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025”.

Citing the rules, the petitioner said, “No person shall record or publish the proceedings unless expressly permitted by the court. No unauthorized recording of the proceedings shall be made by any person or entity. The making and sharing of video of the proceedings by you is in violation of the Video Conferencing Rules, 2021 for the Delhi High Court and the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025”.

The petitioner also claimed that complaints had been sent to the Delhi High Court registry and social media platforms seeking removal of the content, but no effective steps have been taken so far. Due to which it became necessary to file this PIL.

This development has come to light amid the hearing of the ongoing criminal revision petition in the Delhi High Court, which has been filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

In this petition, CBI has challenged the order of the lower court, in which all 23 accused, including Kejriwal and Sisodia, were acquitted in the corruption case related to the now canceled Delhi Excise Policy.

On March 9, a single-judge bench of Justice Sharma had issued notice to the accused on the CBI plea and stayed certain directions given by the trial court, including the adverse observations made against the investigating agency. After this, Justice Sharma rejected Kejriwal’s application in which he had demanded Justice Sharma to recuse himself from the case. Justice Sharma said the allegations of bias were based on “mere suspicion or personal opinion” and there was no concrete evidence to support them.

“The right to recuse can neither be used to select a bench of one’s choice nor to create the impression that justice can be subverted,” the judge warned. “The court cannot be a stage of drama.”

Dismissing the allegations of bias as “speculation and innuendo”, Justice Sharma said the petition “was brought with the intention of imputation and creating doubt on my integrity but was not accompanied by any concrete evidence.

The Chief Justice of Delhi High Court also rejected Kejriwal’s demand at the administrative level in which he had requested to transfer the case from Justice Sharma’s bench to some other bench.

The Chief Justice said that this case was assigned to this bench as per the roster, hence there is no reason to assign it to any other bench again. Kejriwal had expressed apprehension that if the matter remained before this bench, he might not get a fair hearing.

Earlier, a group of senior lawyers, academicians, former police officers and bar association members had written a letter to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. In this letter, he had expressed concern over the allegations made by Kejriwal against a sitting judge of Delhi High Court and demanded to take suo motu cognizance and initiate action in this matter.