Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi
New Delhi, Apr 20: The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by Arvind Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing matters related to the alleged Delhi excise policy case.
Delivering the ruling, Justice Sharma stated that while stepping aside without hearing the application might have been the easier course, she chose to decide the matter on merit to uphold institutional integrity. She observed that the issue extended beyond a routine legal question, touching upon the credibility of both the judge and the judicial institution.
The court emphasised that judicial impartiality is presumed unless proven otherwise with substantial evidence. It held that recusal cannot be granted based on mere apprehensions or personal perceptions of a litigant. “A litigant cannot be allowed to create circumstances that undermine the judicial process,” the judge remarked, adding that repeated allegations do not establish truth without evidence.
Addressing claims raised by Kejriwal, the court found no material indicating bias. Justice Sharma clarified that her participation in events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad was not political in nature, and there was no connection between her family members’ professional roles and the case in question.
She also rejected arguments citing past judicial orders, noting that no adverse findings had been recorded against her decisions. Referring to cases involving AAP leaders such as Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, the court clarified that relief granted by the Supreme Court did not invalidate her reasoning on merits.
The judge further observed that interim relief had earlier been granted to AAP leaders, including Kejriwal and Raghav Chadha, without any allegations of bias being raised at the time. She noted that judicial processes cannot be questioned selectively based on whether outcomes are favourable or unfavourable.
Cautioning against broader implications, Justice Sharma said accepting such recusal pleas without evidence could have serious constitutional consequences and erode public trust in the judiciary. “A courtroom cannot become a theatre of perception,” she said, warning that such practices risk turning justice into a managed outcome rather than an impartial process.
The court concluded that the allegations were based on conjecture and lacked any demonstrable conflict of interest, stating that a judge cannot withdraw from duty in the face of unsubstantiated claims.
The case is part of ongoing proceedings linked to a petition by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging a trial court order that had discharged 23 accused, including Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, in the alleged corruption case tied to the now-scrapped excise policy.
Earlier, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, had also declined Kejriwal’s request to transfer the case to another bench, stating that there was no administrative basis for reassignment and that any decision on recusal rested solely with the presiding judge.