केजरीवाल बोले-जज के बच्चे तुषार मेहता के साथ काम करते: तुषार CBI के वकील हैं, ऐसे में जज कांता मेहता के खिलाफ आदेश कैसे दे पाएंगी

Arvind Kejriwal has again demanded the removal of Justice Swarnakanta Sharma, who is hearing the liquor scam case. Kejriwal has filed another affidavit in Justice Kanta’s court on Wednesday. In this, Kejriwal has raised the issue of the judge’s two children working with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. Kejriwal wrote- Both the judge’s children work with Tushar Mehta. Tushar Mehta hands over the case to his children. Tushar Mehta is the lawyer appearing for CBI. In such a situation, how will Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma be able to issue orders against Tushar Mehta? Earlier, during the hearing on April 13, Kejriwal had said that Justice Sharma had participated 4 times in the program of All India Advocates Council associated with Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. In such a situation, he should be removed from the case. Mention of judge’s children in Kejriwal’s affidavit… Why did Kejriwal file an application for removal of the judge, understand in 5 points. On February 27, the trial court had acquitted Kejriwal and 22 other accused in the excise policy case. This order was challenged by CBI, which is currently being heard by Justice Sharma. On March 9, Justice Sharma issued a notice and stayed the portion of the order that called for departmental action against the investigating officer. He also prima facie said that some of the observations of the trial court were wrong and directed the trial court to adjourn the PMLA (money laundering) proceedings. After this, Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai and Chanpreet Singh Riot filed an application for the removal of Justice Sharma. 13 April: 10 big arguments in Kejriwal’s courtroom… – No one except CBI was present during the hearing on 9 March. Without listening to them, the court declared the trial court’s order prima facie wrong. The trial court had given its verdict after hearing the whole day, but the High Court declared it wrong in a 5-minute hearing. When the order came, I felt that the matter was going towards favoritism. I wrote a letter to the Chief Justice, but it was rejected. After this I gave this application. – Earlier you had said that the statements of the ‘approver’ (accused who became a witness) are valid. But here, after only 5 minutes of hearing, you said that the comments made by the trial court on the statements of the approver are wrong. This was the most worrying thing for me. – I wish to rely on the decision of this court in Satyendar Jain vs. ED. Bail hearing was going on in that case. The hearing had lasted for 6 days and that was the last date. Suddenly ED expressed fear of bias. The District Judge accepted it. The matter came to the High Court and it was accepted there also. There are a lot of similarities between that case and mine. In that case, the court had said that the question is not about the honesty of the judge, but about the apprehension created in the mind of the party. My case is also similar. Here also the question is not about the honesty of the judge. The High Court also stopped the ongoing action against the Investigating Officer (IO). The things written by the trial court were not against the CBI but against the IO. The IO had not sought any relief in the High Court and he was not even present there. Yet the action against him was stopped only on the request of CBI. This creates doubt in my mind. – According to law, discharge orders are stayed only in very rare cases, but without hearing us, a part of the order was stayed and the remaining part was also changed. It seems that most of the decision of the trial court has been overturned by this unilateral order. I was not even given a copy of the CBI petition. – I have seen that the hearing of this case and the case of other accused related to the same case, like Manish Sisodia, is going on very fast. Such speed is not seen in any other case. Both the cases are related to opposition leaders. – Almost every argument of CBI and ED is accepted in this court. His every demand becomes an order. Only one case (Arun Pillai case) stood out. Whenever ED or CBI says something, it is accepted and the order is given in their favour. CBI filed a petition in just 4 hours against the long decision of the trial court, in which there was not much concrete material. Yet a unilateral order was given in the very first hearing. – 5 cases have already come before this court. My case was related to arrest. The bail pleas of Sanjay Singh, K Kavita and Aman Dhall were also heard here. The observations made by this Court in those cases amount to judgments in themselves. – There is an organization named Advocate Parishad, which is associated with RSS. You have participated in its programs four times. We are completely against his ideology and oppose it openly. This matter is political. If a judge attends programs related to a particular ideology, it creates a possibility of bias. In such a situation, this question arises in my mind whether I will get fair justice or not? – An issue is also being discussed on social media that if people close to the judge are associated with any party or lawyers, then the judge recuses himself from that case. If people close to the judge are associated with any party, they recuse themselves from the case. I request that this matter also be considered. February 27: The trial court had acquitted 23 accused including Kejriwal. On February 27, Kejriwal started crying while giving statement outside the trial court. Manish Sisodia had consoled him. On February 27, the trial court had given relief to all the 23 accused including Kejriwal in this case. The trial court had also strongly criticized the CBI investigation in this case. Justice Swarnakanta Sharma had heard the CBI’s petition against the trial court’s order. He had said on March 9 that prima facie (at first sight) the comments of the trial court seem wrong and their consideration is necessary. Besides, Justice Sharma’s court had also stayed the trial court’s recommendation to initiate departmental action against the CBI investigating officer. Kejriwal remained in jail for 156 days, Sisodia for 530 days. Delhi government had made an excise policy in 2021 to increase revenue and improve liquor trade, which was later withdrawn after allegations of irregularities. After this, Lieutenant Governor Vinay Saxena ordered a CBI investigation. CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED) allege that private companies were benefited through this policy and corruption took place in it. In this case, Kejriwal was arrested and sent to custody during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. He got bail from the Supreme Court after 156 days of custody. Sisodia remained in jail for 530 days in this case. ———————————— Also read this news… Delhi Liquor Policy Case – High Court’s notice to all 23 accused: Ban on comments made against CBI officer, order not to hear the money laundering case. On March 9, Delhi High Court had issued notice to 23 accused including former CM Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia in the Delhi Liquor Policy case and sought answers. The High Court had stayed the observations made by the trial court against the CBI officers. Read the full news…



Source link
[ad_3]