Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to step aside, calling the recusal plea a strategic move by Arvind Kejriwal to create a “win-win” situation. The court said recusal must be based on law, not narratives, and rejecting it protects judicial independence.
In a significant development in the ongoing excise policy case, a Bench of the Delhi High Court led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday dismissed the applications filed by Arvind Kejriwal and other accused seeking her recusal from hearing the matter.
The pleas were moved in connection with proceedings initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which has challenged the discharge granted to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader in the controversial liquor policy case. Along with Kejriwal, senior AAP leaders including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha had also sought the judge’s recusal.
The applicants argued that certain earlier orders passed by Justice Sharma—where relief was denied to some of the accused—raised doubts about impartiality. Kejriwal further alleged a “conflict of interest,” claiming that the judge’s children being empanelled as lawyers for the central government could influence the proceedings.
However, Justice Sharma rejected all such claims, delivering a detailed and strongly worded verdict in both English and Hindi. She addressed the broader implications of recusal requests, emphasizing that such pleas cannot be entertained merely on the basis of perception, allegations, or personal narratives without any concrete legal foundation.
The Court underscored that judicial recusal must be grounded in law and demonstrable bias, not speculative claims or strategic litigation tactics. Justice Sharma also highlighted that yielding to such demands without valid reasons could undermine public confidence in the independence of the judiciary.
Importantly, the Court clarified that merely because a judge has previously ruled against a party, it cannot be assumed that the judge is biased. The ruling also made it clear that the professional engagements of a judge’s family members cannot automatically create a conflict of interest unless a direct and proven connection to the case is established.
The judgment further reiterated that judges must not step aside simply to avoid controversy, as doing so without sufficient cause would amount to abandoning judicial responsibility. Justice Sharma noted that her decision to hear and decide the recusal plea was driven by institutional integrity rather than personal considerations.
The Court also addressed the issue of allegations made in public discourse and social media, observing that repetition of claims does not convert them into truth. It emphasized that courts must rely on evidence and legal reasoning, not on narratives shaped outside the courtroom.
Here are the key quotes from Justice Sharma’s verdict, presented exactly as delivered:
“Now, it is a Catch-22 situation of seeking a recusal. In this case, I have been placed in such a position where whether I recuse or do not recuse, questions will arise. The applicant (Kejriwal) has created a win-win situation for himself.”
“If he [Kejriwal] 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. Recusal has to stem from law and not from narrative. Thus, the pleas filed by Kejriwal and others are rejected.”
“A recusal would lead the public to believe that judges are aligned with a particular political party or ideology. This court, by penning a recusal, cannot allow this. A courtroom cannot be a theatre of perception… In case this court withdraws from this case in the absence of any demonstrable cause, it would attach weight to allegations which carry none.”
“The issue was clear as to whether I should recuse. My impartiality and dignity had been challenged. The easier path would have been to recuse without hearing the application. I decided to adjudicate the application because it was a question of the institution. I decided to decide it without being affected by the accusations, as I have done in 34 years of my judicial career.”
“Responding to Arvind Kejriwal’s allegation of a “direct conflict of interest” over her children being empanelled as central government lawyers, Justice Sharma said, “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”.”
“In the opinion of this court, even if the relatives of this court are on the government panel, the litigant has to show the impact of that on the present case or the decision-making power of this court. No such nexus has been shown.”
“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.”
“I choose the path to resolve the controversy. The strength of judiciary lies in its strong resolve to decide the acquisitions. I have written the order without being affected by anything.”
“In Kejriwal’s arrest case, only the necessity of arrest question was referred to a larger bench and interim bail was granted. The order of his court was not set aside. If a judge’s order is set aside by a superior court, it does not give a litigant the right to stand here and claim that the judge is unfit to hear the case.”
“Recusal would not be prudence, but abdication of duty. It would be an act of surrender.”
Click Here to Read More On Arvind Kejriwal
