Hyderabad (Telangana) [India], April 28 (ANI): In response to AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal's letter to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and his refusal to appear in person or through a lawyer in the Delhi excise policy case, BJP spokesperson Prakash Reddy stated that Kejriwal has the right to seek a change of judge but should not level allegations against the court.

'AAP leader Kejriwal has every right to ask the court's Chief Justice to change the Judge of his case. He is a citizen of this country, and he has the right to change it, but when you are asking to change the Judge, you have no business attributing some malafide intentions to the judge,' Reddy said.

BJP spokesperson Prakash Reddy said that a former Chief Minister should not level allegations against judges, adding that while seeking legal remedies is a right, it must not violate constitutional obligations.

He added, 'Being a former CM, you cannot put any allegations on any Judge... It is against the interest of the country and violates the constitutional values... On one side, you are using your right, but on the other side, you are violating the fundamental constitutional obligations... Justice will not come just because someone belongs to a particular ideology or any particular inclination, but will come on the merits of your case.'

On Monday, Kejriwal had written a letter, raising concerns over the legal proceedings. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has maintained its stance on the issue, alleging bias in the process.

The letter, addressed with what Kejriwal describes as 'utmost respect' to both the judge and the institution of the judiciary, states that his decision is rooted not in defiance but in conscience. He emphasises that his faith in the judiciary as an institution remains intact, even as he raises apprehensions about fairness in the present case.

The development comes shortly after the Delhi High Court dismissed Kejriwal's plea seeking the recusal of Justice Sharma. In its ruling, the Court held that the allegations did not meet the legal threshold of a reasonable apprehension of bias and were based on conjecture rather than evidence.

The Court underscored that 'the courtroom cannot become a theatre of perception,' cautioning against attempts to question judicial impartiality without substantive material. It further observed that allowing such pleas could undermine institutional credibility and set an undesirable precedent.

Rejecting the arguments, the Court clarified that a judge cannot be asked to recuse merely on the basis of perceived bias, particularly when no direct conflict of interest is established. It also noted that judicial competence is assessed by higher courts, not litigants, and that participation in professional or public events does not compromise impartiality.

In his letter, Kejriwal reiterated concerns that were earlier raised in his recusal application. He referred to what he describes as the judge's association with certain legal organisations and raised questions about potential conflict of interest arising from her children being empanelled as counsel for the Union Government.

He further pointed to the role of the Solicitor General in assigning cases to panel lawyers and highlighted figures related to case allocations, suggesting that these factors could give rise to a perception of bias in a politically sensitive matter. (ANI)