Aam Aadmi Party national convener Arvind Kejriwal appeared in the Delhi high court representing himself for a plea for the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case. During the hearing, he laid out ten grounds to support his plea and argued that there exists a “real grave and reasonable apprehension” in his mind that he may not receive a fair hearing.Concluding his submissions shortly before the court rose for a brief recess, Kejriwal maintained that a series of judicial orders, courtroom observations and surrounding circumstances had created a perception of bias. The court, which is hearing only the recusal plea at this stage, repeatedly clarified that it would confine itself to the ten grounds cited by Kejriwal.Sure — here’s your original content divided into ten clear subheadings, keeping all quotes and phrasing intact as in your draft:

1. Perceived endorsement of ED–CBI arguments

During the hearing, Kejriwal pointed to what he described as a pattern in which “every single argument of ED CBI is endorsed by the court” and “every prayer of ED CBI is converted into a judgment”. He argued that this trend, observed across multiple earlier orders, contributed to his apprehension.

2. Unusual speed of proceedings

He also cited the speed at which certain proceedings were conducted, stating that no other matters were being heard “at this speed”, especially those involving “the most prominent political opponents”. When the court asked, “So you are insinuating political bias?”, Kejriwal responded by emphasising the impression such circumstances create rather than alleging personal bias.

3. Ex parte order of March 9

Kejriwal further referred to an ex parte order passed on March 9, arguing that it stayed trial court proceedings without hearing all parties. “In the absence of the opposing party (an ex parte proceeding conducted without notice) this Court passed an order. Subsequently, following a hearing spanning five months, this Court declared that order to be prima facie erroneous,” he said, questioning the urgency behind such intervention. The court responded that the manner in which an order is written cannot be questioned before it and is a matter for a higher forum.

4. Prior judicial observations

Another key ground raised by Kejriwal related to earlier judicial observations. He argued that strong findings on issues such as approver statements and alleged corruption had already been recorded, which could influence future hearings. “It appears the court gave a final judgment in just two hearings,” he said, adding that he had been “almost declared guilty and corrupt” in earlier proceedings.

5. Relief extended beyond formal prayer

He also objected to what he described as the extension of relief beyond what was formally sought. Referring to the March 9 prima facie order, he said that although it arose from a CBI petition, relief affecting Enforcement Directorate proceedings was granted based on an oral request. “The ED had nothing to do with it. Mehta ji just made a verbal demand,” he argued.

6. Stay on proceedings concerning investigating officer

Kejriwal additionally flagged the stay on proceedings concerning the investigating officer, noting that the officer had not sought such relief. “The IO is not even asking for it,” he said, calling it a development that “raises deep doubts.”

7. Language used in court orders

Among other grounds, Kejriwal cited the language used in court orders, alleged denial of adequate opportunity to file replies, and references in an order stating that parties had “chosen not to attend”, which he said left him “a little sad”.

8. Denial of adequate opportunity

He also raised concerns about not being granted a sufficient chance to file replies, arguing that such procedural denials impacted the fairness due to him.

9. Perceived ideological proximity

He raised concerns about perceived ideological proximity, referring to the judge’s attendance at events organised by a body he linked to the RSS. “If your honour is attending a program of a particular ideology, then it creates reasonable bias,” he said, adding that he and his party strongly oppose that ideology. The court sought clarification on whether such events were legal or political in nature.

10. Apprehension of fairness and integrity

During the proceedings, Kejriwal emphasised that the issue was not the integrity of the judge but the perception of fairness. “Question is not of the integrity of the judge, question is apprehension in mind of party,” he said, relying on Supreme Court judgments to argue that reasonable apprehension alone can justify recusal. He also drew parallels with the case of Satyendar Jain, where a matter was transferred after apprehensions were raised, arguing that he was seeking similar parity.