PANAJI: The Aam Aadmi Party has accused the BJP of misleading the public over Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s case, particularly on his plea seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, and raised concerns about conflict of interest and due process.
Addressing a press conference today, AAP Goa chief Valmiki Naik said BJP leaders across Goa, Delhi, and other parts of the country had been celebrating and amplifying a false narrative around the case. “Strong and inappropriate language was used in BJP press conferences to mislead people. We are placing the facts clearly before the public,” he said, rejecting claims that the party’s objections were based on gender.
Naik alleged that Kejriwal’s arrest was carried out pre-trial and described it as part of a conspiracy that began to unravel earlier this year. He pointed to a lower court order that discharged the case before trial, stating it was not fit to be heard. “Within minutes, that order was stayed by the High Court, even before it could be uploaded, and proceedings against the CBI officer were also halted,” he said.
The AAP leader said Kejriwal had moved a recusal plea citing a clear conflict of interest. “Justice Sharma’s two children are government lawyers working under Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is appearing against Arvind Kejriwal. That places them in a direct professional hierarchy,” Naik said, adding that both were empanelled on the High Court panel on the same day. “This cannot be seen as a mere coincidence,” he claimed.
The second concern, he said, related to the judge’s participation in events linked to the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, an RSS-affiliated body. “Justice Sharma has attended at least four such public functions as the chief guest. Given AAP’s ideological opposition to the RSS and BJP, this raises a reasonable apprehension of bias,” Naik said.
AAP Goa legal wing member Sunil Loran said the recusal request was rejected despite the concerns raised. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ranjit Thakur vs Union of India, he stressed the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, and argued that in such cases, a judge should not decide their own recusal plea. “The matter should have been placed before another bench,” he said.
Loran also questioned the broader legal framework, including the use of stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which he said operate on a presumption of guilt.
The party further alleged that independent institutions, including the Election Commission, were being controlled in the name of the people, calling it part of a wider pattern of systemic interference.
