Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected recusal pleas, saying allegations lacked proof and could damage judicial independence. The Delhi High Court ruled that courts cannot be influenced by narratives, politics, or “forum shopping.”
In a detailed and strongly worded order, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court declined to recuse herself from hearing the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Delhi Excise Policy case involving Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and several others.
The Court delivered an hour-long order explaining why the request seeking her recusal was not legally sustainable. Justice Sharma carefully addressed each allegation raised by Kejriwal and made it clear that mere doubts or perceptions cannot override the established legal principle of judicial impartiality.
At the very beginning, the judge firmly rejected the narrative built around repeated allegations, stating,
“As an officer of this court I am conscious of the fact that a lie even if repeated thousand times in court or on social media does not become truth. It remains false. Truth doesn’t lose its force merely because a lie is repeated several times.”
During the proceedings, Justice Sharma emphasised that Kejriwal himself had clarified that he was not questioning her integrity but had expressed apprehensions about getting justice. However, the Court held that such concerns must be supported by concrete evidence. She pointed out that there is always a legal presumption that judges act impartially, and this presumption cannot be displaced by mere suspicion.
Highlighting the nature of the plea, she observed,
“I must add that the file seeking recusal did not arrive with evidence; it arrived on my table with aspersions, insinuations and doubts cast on my integrity, fairness and impartiality,”
making it clear that the application lacked substantive proof.
Addressing allegations regarding her participation in events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), Justice Sharma clarified that judges routinely attend events organised by various bar associations across ideologies. She explained that such participation is part of judicial engagement and cannot be used to infer bias. The Court also underlined the importance of the relationship between the Bar and the Bench, stating that such interactions are essential for the functioning of the judicial system.
On the issue of alleged conflict of interest involving her family members, the Court firmly rejected the claim. Justice Sharma noted that no direct connection or impact on the present case had been demonstrated. She also defended the rights of judges’ family members to pursue legal careers, remarking,
“If the wife of a politician can become a politician, if the children of a politician can become politicians. How can it be said that the children of a judge can’t enter the profession of law? This would mean taking away the fundamental rights of a family of judges.”
She further clarified that none of her children were connected to the excise policy case in any manner.
Justice Sharma also criticised what she described as selective reliance on past court orders. She pointed out that Kejriwal and his party members had earlier received favourable reliefs from her court without raising any objections. Referring to this, she stated,
“People belonging to Arvind Kejriwal’s party did not argue that no interim order should be passed in their favour. There are several other cases pending before this Court, including the leaders belonging to Arvind Kejriwal’s party. Many such orders have been continued by this Court and this judge but no allegations were raised then because perhaps the order was in their favour.”
On the argument that her earlier orders were set aside by the Supreme Court of India, the Court clarified that the apex court had not made any adverse remarks about her decisions. Justice Sharma explained,
“He (AAP MP Sanjay Singh) was granted bail (by Supreme Court) on a concession made by ED (Enforcement Directorate) and no comments were made on my order.” She further added, “Similarly, in Manish Sisodia case, no findings or observations were made (by Supreme Court) on the orders passed by this Court.”
The Court also rejected the argument based on statements made by political leaders, including remarks by Amit Shah. Justice Sharma made it clear that courts cannot be influenced by public statements, observing,
“Seeking recusal on such a ground would amount to proceeding purely on imagination. This Court has no control on what a politician may choose to state in the public domain. It equally cannot regulate statements made by politicians.”
Justice Sharma further warned that allowing such recusal pleas without proper grounds would create a dangerous precedent and weaken the judicial system. She stressed that accepting such arguments would encourage attempts to influence courts through narratives rather than legal reasoning.
In a strong assertion of judicial independence, she said,
“The narratives in applications were based on conjecture. If I were to accept them, it would create a troubling precedent. I have decided fearlessly all questions before me. This court cannot be weighed down by the allegations and insinuations. This court will not yield or retreat when doing so will affect the credibility of the institution itself. It will not be justice administered but justice managed.”
The Court also highlighted what it described as a “Catch-22” situation created by Kejriwal, where any outcome could be used to support his narrative.
Justice Sharma explained,
“If he does not get the relief, he will say that he had already predicted the outcome. If he gets the relief, he can say the Court acted under pressure. The litigant may portray the situation whichever way it suits his narrative.”
She warned against allowing influential individuals to engage in “forum shopping” by attempting to choose judges based on perceived outcomes.
Finally, Justice Sharma concluded that stepping aside in such circumstances would amount to abandoning her judicial duty. Emphasising her constitutional responsibility, she reiterated,
“This court cannot be weighed down by the allegations and insinuations. This court will not yield or retreat when doing so will affect the credibility of the institution itself. It will not be justice administered but justice managed.”
The order reinforces key principles of judicial independence, impartiality, and accountability, sending a clear message that courts cannot be swayed by perceptions, political narratives, or unsubstantiated allegations.
9 Key Reasons Why Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Refused to Recuse from Arvind Kejriwal’s Case
1. Mere Apprehensions Cannot Prove Bias
The Court held that personal doubts, assumptions, or “illusions” are not enough to question a judge’s impartiality without solid proof.
2. No Evidence, Only Allegations in Recusal Plea
The plea was based on insinuations and doubts rather than any concrete material showing bias.
3. Attending Bar Events Does Not Indicate Bias
Participation in events organised by different bar bodies is part of a judge’s normal role and cannot be linked to ideological leaning.
4. No Conflict of Interest Due to Family Members
No connection was shown between the judge’s family members and the case, and their legal careers cannot be restricted.
5. Selective Use of Past Favourable Orders
The Court noted that no objections were raised earlier when Kejriwal’s side received favourable orders from the same judge.
6. No Adverse Remarks by Supreme Court of India
Although some orders were challenged, the Supreme Court did not criticise or find fault with her decisions.
7. Courts Not Responsible for Political Statements
Statements made by leaders like Amit Shah cannot be grounds for seeking recusal.
8. Recusal Would Encourage “Forum Shopping”
Allowing such pleas could let powerful litigants choose judges based on convenience, harming judicial independence.
9. Recusal Would Mean Abdicating Judicial Duty
Stepping aside without valid grounds would set a wrong precedent and weaken public confidence in the judiciary.
Click Here to Read More On Arvind Kejriwal
