We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
2. Come speak to the members of the Delhi Bar to know how they really feel, and how things really here are and how most of us feel about each of the judges.
3. The current president of the Bar has represented Kejriwal previously on multiple occasions. I do not think it would be appropriate for him to make any such comments - it would appear very improper. My resentments with the Prez. are about his inability to take a stand/lack of a spine. Even then, I do find him to be a man of integrity. I do not think he would want to muddy his reputation by making any political comments.
4. Kejriwal actually was not "questioning the probity of" the judge. He said there is apprehension of bias, especially given that similar findings against him have been given in the previous cases (including Kejru's WP challenging his arrest. Apprehension of bias is not the same as questioning someone's 'probity'.
4.a. Especially when his first ground was that detailed findings were given in previous judgments saying offence was prima facie made out + on the first date it was said that impugned order is prima facie wrong. Charge/discharge anyway has to be determined at a prima facie standard - so that finding already stands given. (Sidenote: yes, yes. Technically standard of charge/discharge is "grave suspicion" - Dilawar Kurane, Sajjan Singh et al - but that's being pedantic).
Anyway, no point commenting on merits/demerits of the recusal application itself. But worthwhile to point out that seeking recusal is not automatically the same as casting aspersions on a judge.