Today, On 20th April, Delhi High Court rejected Arvind Kejriwal’s demand seeking Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s recusal in the Delhi liquor policy case. She said her constitutional oath ensures justice does not bend or yield to pressure and she will decide the case fearlessly.
Delhi High Court rejected his demand that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recuse herself from hearing the Delhi liquor policy case.
Justice Sharma, refused to withdraw, dismissing Kejriwal’s claims of bias and asserting that the hearing must remain fair and impartial.
Kejriwal, the AAP national convenor, had sought Justice Sharma’s recusal from a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) petition in the liquor policy matter. He argued there was a “grave, bona fide and reasonable apprehension” that the proceedings before her could be neither impartial nor neutral.
In a detailed order running nearly 90 minutes, Justice Sharma rejected the recusal request. She dismissed the allegations of bias and cautioned against attempts to undermine judicial credibility.
Adding that Kejriwal had not pointed to any political statement that could indicate ideological bias, she said,
“The floodgates can’t be opened to sow seeds of mistrust,”
She said,
“My oath is to the Constitution. My oath has taught me that justice does not bend under pressure. Justice does not yield to any pressure. I will decide and adjudicate fearlessly without any bias. I will not recuse from this case,”
She observed,
“There is a presumption of impartiality of a judge and a presumption of impartiality has to be rebutted by the litigant seeking recusal of a judge,”
Justice Sharma said the applications effectively put the judiciary on trial. She stated that Kejriwal and others had not substantiated their claims, and that the court would address the controversy on its merits.
She said,
“The litigant has put the judiciary on trial. I choose the path to resolve the controversy. The strength of the judiciary lies in its strong resolve to decide the acquisitions. I have written the order without being affected by anything,”
Addressing Kejriwal’s concerns about her participation in programmes organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), the judge clarified that the events were not political.
She said,
“They were programmes on new criminal laws and women’s day events or to interact with younger members of the bar. Many judges have been participating in those events. Such participation cannot be used to insinuate ideological bias,”
She added,
“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,”
On the alleged conflict of interest Kejriwal claimed her children were part of a central government panel counsel Justice Sharma said there was no demonstrated link to the case or its decision-making.
Adding that none of her children were connected to the liquor policy case, she said,
‘“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,”
She further stressed that restricting judges’ family members from practising law would violate fundamental rights.
Justice Sharma remarked,
“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,”
Justice Sharma also rejected the contention that fear of an adverse outcome alone could justify recusal.
She said,
“Merely stating that one will not get relief from the court cannot be a ground to seek recusal from the judge,”
Warning of wider consequences, the court said recusal in such circumstances could suggest judges align with political ideologies.
She said,
“This court, by penning a recusal, cannot allow this. I asked myself what could happen if I did not recuse… and what would happen if I recused,”
The judge noted that recusal would have been the simpler option, but she chose not to do so despite the pressure and criticism.
While also expressing concern about a media driven narrative and vilification without accountability around the proceedings, she said,
“The easier path of recusal would have offered a quiet exit,”
Concluding the matter, Justice Sharma said recusal in these circumstances would amount to surrender rather than prudence.
Rejecting Kejriwal’s request, Justice Sharma held that stepping aside would not be appropriate and would instead be an abdication of duty and an act of surrender.
Earlier, on February 27, a trial court had cleared Kejriwal and 22 others in the Delhi liquor policy case. That verdict was challenged by the CBI and is currently being considered by Justice Sharma.
Earlier, On March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice on the CBI’s petition and stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental proceedings against the investigating officer.
She also flagged certain findings in the lower court’s order as erroneous, and directed the trial court to defer proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), linked to the CBI’s FIR.
Following this, Kejriwal and other accused including Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai and Chanpreet Singh Rayat moved applications seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal.
Kejriwal argued the judge should not hear the case because her son and daughter serve as panel counsel for the central government, which he said could create a potential conflict of interest.
Click Here to Read More On Arvind Kejriwal