'Not Done For Any Aam Aadmi': How Heated Exchange Between Kejriwal, Delhi HC Judge Unfolded

The exchange in the Delhi High Court between Arvind Kejriwal and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma took a heated turn as the AAP chief pressed his plea in the excise policy case. Kejriwal, appearing in person via video conference, urged the court to take his rejoinder on record, arguing that it had been permitted earlier and that excluding it would amount to a “miscarriage of justice.” He maintained that he had clearly indicated his intent to file the rejoinder and that the court had allowed it, but it was not reflected in the record.Opposing him, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pushed back, stressing that the matter had already been argued and reserved for orders. He noted that Kejriwal had been given ample opportunity to present his case, including

filing an additional affidavit and written submissions.“Once the matter is reserved, no further pleadings can be entertained,” he argued, adding that such a rejoinder to written submissions was not standard legal practice.On Kejriwal's allegation of "miscarriage of justice", the bench led by Justice Sharma made its position clear. The court underlined that Kejriwal had already been granted leeway beyond ordinary procedure. “You had, out of the way, been given an opportunity to file an additional affidavit,” the judge remarked, adding pointedly, “Normally, this is not done for any Aam Aadmi.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ioy0baxZjA

The court also emphasised procedural discipline, noting that being self-represented does not exempt a litigant from following due process. “The registry does not process your pleading because you are self-represented, so you must appear personally. This is not an extraordinary case,” the bench said.Drawing a firm line, the court reiterated that once an order is reserved, there is no provision to submit further pleadings. It also reminded Kejriwal that managing the conduct of his case was his responsibility, not the court’s.However, in a balancing move aimed at dispelling any perception of bias, the bench agreed to treat Kejriwal’s rejoinder as part of his written submissions, while making it clear that this was an exception rather than the rule.The High Court later dismissed Kejriwal’s plea seeking recusal of Justice Sharma, holding that the allegations did not meet the threshold of a “reasonable apprehension of bias” and warning that entertaining such claims on mere suspicion could undermine the integrity of the judicial process.