court Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court heard former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal's petition on Monday for her recusal from hearing the liquor policy case. The court told the AAP leader that he had "argued well" and that he may now practise law.
However, Kejriwal replied that he was content with his current vocation.You made a good argument. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma told the AAP president, "Aap vakeel ban sakte hai," following his hour-long presentation on his request for the judge to be recused from hearing the CBI's petition against the trial court's decision to release him and the other accused in the liquor policy case.

Senior attorney Sanjay Hegde, representing AAP leader Manish Sisodia, asked the former IRS official "not to add to the competition" even as he replied that he was content with his current vocation.
On Monday, the hearing began at 2:30 PM and continued until approximately 7 PM. After hearing all sides, the court postponed making a decision regarding recusal.
Kejriwal objected to the judge hearing the CBI plea on a number of grounds, including the fact that she had previously denied him relief on his petition contesting his arrest, refused to grant relief on the bail requests of other accused, such as Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha, and made "strong and conclusive" findings.

"I came dangerously close to being found guilty. I came very close to being labelled corrupt. He said, "Kewal saza sunani baaki reh gayi thi (Only the sentence was left to be pronounced)."
The AAP leader has previously made arguments in court.
When the trial court extended his detention with the Enforcement Directorate in the associated case on March 28, 2024, Kejriwal confronted the trial judge personally and asked if there was sufficient evidence to detain a sitting chief minister. Despite having senior attorneys representing him, the trial judge allowed him to make verbal submissions.

On March 9, Justice Sharma sent notifications to each of the 23 accused regarding the CBI's plea against their release, stating that certain of the trial court's observations and conclusions at the charge-framing stage looked to be incorrect and should be taken into account.
The trial court's suggestion to start departmental action against the CBI's investigating officer in the spirits policy issue was also halted by her.