New Delhi [India], April 14 (ANI): Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta on Tuesday slammed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener Arvind Kejriwal, saying that whenever someone tried to speak against him, he has positioned him in a 'witness box.'

Addressing the gathering, the Delhi Chief Minister said that Kejriwal has consistently shown disregard for democracy, be it the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate (ED), or judicial bodies.

'Whenever he heard something negative about him, he positioned 'it' in the witness box. Be it the CBI, ED, judiciary, or the Prime Minister himself. This is the very individual who has consistently shown disregard for democracy, be it the CBI, the ED, the Election Commission of India, the Prime Minister, the Lieutenant Governor, or the Judiciary itself,' she said.

Calling Kejriwal 'a culprit of the public,' Gupta said that the nation is noticing the misconduct and will respond to it. Further, she questioned the former CM on the reason for targeting the judiciary.

'I wish to ask, when a ruling went in your favour, you wore it like a crown and proclaimed that there could be no person more virtuous than yourself. What fear is haunting you today that you've started pointing fingers at the judiciary? The entire country has faith in the judiciary, and justice will be served. The people of Delhi, indeed, the people of the entire nation, are witnessing this misconduct of his. The entire country reposes its faith in the Judiciary, and justice will undoubtedly prevail. He stands as a culprit of the public, and the public, too, will ensure that justice is served,' he said.

The remarks come after Kejriwal opened his arguments before the Delhi High Court on Monday, pressing for recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the CBI's excise policy case.

Appearing in person, Kejriwal built his case around the principle that even a reasonable apprehension of bias is sufficient in law to seek recusal. He told the Court that his plea is based on ten specific grounds and insisted that the issue lies in perception, not proof of actual bias.

Central to his submissions was the argument that earlier observations of the Court in related matters had been 'so strong' that they appeared to carry the weight of final findings. He referred to multiple previous cases, including those of the co-accused, to argue that such observations now cast a shadow on the present proceedings. 'The question is whether those earlier views continue to weigh in the mind of the court,' he submitted.

Kejriwal contrasted these observations with the trial court's discharge order, which came after months of day-to-day hearings and held that no offence, bribery or proceeds of crime were established, while also questioning the reliability of approver statements. He argued that the High Court's interim intervention, particularly the March 9 order passed without hearing all parties, had the effect of undermining those findings. 'What was the urgency for such an order?' he asked, adding that it created a serious doubt in his mind.

He further contended that discharge orders are not to be stayed lightly, citing Supreme Court precedent, and argued that the partial stay granted in his case effectively diluted the trial court's conclusions. He also raised concerns over the pace of proceedings, stating that his matter was being heard at an unusually fast rate compared to other criminal revisions, both involving opposition leaders.

Seeking parity, Kejriwal referred to instances where recusal had been accepted on the basis of apprehension alone. 'I am only asking for the same standard,' he said, adding that his apprehensions are on 'stronger footing.'

Throughout his submissions, Kejriwal maintained that his plea is limited and procedural in nature, stressing that the recusal issue is 'between the court and the party' and not a matter for the prosecuting agency.

The Court, however, indicated that it would confine the hearing strictly to the recusal application and the grounds raised, observing that issues relating to the merits of the trial court's order would be considered separately.

The High Court is currently hearing the CBI's challenge to the trial court's discharge of Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and others in the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 case. (ANI)