NEW DELHI: In a strongly worded judgment reinforcing judicial independence, the Delhi high court on Monday refused to allow a plea by Arvind Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Delhi excise policy case, holding that the allegations were “based on conjectures and insinuations” and fell short of the legal standard required to establish bias.Delivering a detailed order, Justice Sharma made it clear that recusal cannot be granted on the basis of perception or unfounded apprehension, warning that such attempts risk eroding public trust in the judiciary. “The application did not arrive with evidence; it came with aspersions, insinuations and doubts cast on my integrity, fairness and impartiality,” the court observed.
Court rejects claims of bias
The plea had alleged a perceived conflict of interest and questioned the judge’s impartiality, citing her past orders in the case, participation in certain events, and the professional positions held by her family members. However, the court systematically rejected each of these grounds.On the allegation of ideological bias, Justice Sharma noted that no political statement or conduct had been cited to support such a claim. Addressing her participation in events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, the court clarified that these were professional and academic interactions attended by several judges and could not be construed as political activity.The court also dismissed concerns regarding her children being empanelled as central government counsel, ruling that no direct connection or “nexus” with the present case had been demonstrated. It stressed that a litigant cannot dictate the professional choices of a judge’s family members in the absence of any evidence of misuse of judicial office.
1. No evidence, only insinuations
- Court said the plea was based on “conjectures”
- No material proof was placed to show bias
2. Personal apprehensions are not enough
- Kejriwal’s “doubts” and “fears” do not meet the legal test
- Bias must be shown through objective material, not perception
3. Presumption of judicial impartiality stands
- A judge is presumed to be impartial unless clearly proven otherwise
- This presumption was not rebutted
4. Participation in bar events is not bias
- Events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad were professional, not political
- Judges routinely attend legal and academic programmes
5. No conflict of interest established
- Allegation regarding judge’s children on government panel rejected
- Court said no “nexus” with the case was shown
6. Children’s right to practice law protected
- Court held judges’ family members cannot be barred from legal profession
- That would violate their fundamental rights
7. Prior favourable orders were not objected to
- AAP did not raise bias allegations when earlier interim reliefs were granted
- Challenge came only after adverse proceedings began
8. Judges cannot be influenced by political statements
- Court said it has no control over remarks made by politicians outside court
- Such statements cannot form basis for recusal
‘Courtroom cannot become theatre of perception’
In one of the sharpest observations in the order, the court cautioned against turning judicial proceedings into a “theatre of perception,” stating that justice cannot be influenced by narratives or subjective apprehensions.“A litigant cannot be allowed to put the judiciary on trial,” the judge said, adding that even a powerful political figure cannot level allegations against a sitting judge without substantiating them with material evidence.The court further noted that accepting such pleas would open the “floodgates” for attempts to delay proceedings or engage in forum shopping by targeting judges through unverified claims.
Prior orders not grounds for recusal
Kejriwal had also pointed to earlier orders passed by Justice Sharma in the excise case and related matters. Rejecting this argument, the court clarified that adverse rulings cannot form the basis for recusal. It emphasised that judicial decisions are subject to scrutiny by higher courts, not by litigants seeking a change of bench.The judgment underscored that recusal is governed by well-established legal principles and requires a clear demonstration of reasonable apprehension of bias—something the court found entirely lacking in this case.
Strong defence of judicial independence
Justice Sharma highlighted the broader implications of entertaining such pleas, observing that they could undermine not just an individual judge but the institution itself. She described the situation as a “catch-22,” where recusal would validate baseless allegations, while refusal could invite further criticism.“The robe this court wears is not so light,” she remarked, asserting that judicial functions cannot be surrendered under pressure or public perception. The court reiterated that “allegations, however persistent, cannot take the place of proof.”
Separate recusal in another matter
In a related but separate development, Justice Sharma recused herself from hearing a bail plea filed by former AAP MLA Naresh Balyan in a case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. The matter has been directed to be listed before another bench on April 23.
Political reactions
Kejriwal, who is currently campaigning in Tamil Nadu alongside Chief Minister M. K. Stalin, declined to comment on the High Court’s order, stating that he had not yet read the judgment.Meanwhile, BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj launched a sharp attack, accusing the AAP chief of attempting to pressure the judiciary and calling the plea politically motivated.
Background of the case
The case relates to alleged irregularities in the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22, which is under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. A trial court had earlier discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others, a decision that has been challenged before the High Court.With the recusal plea now dismissed, the High Court is set to proceed with hearing the case on its merits, marking the next phase in the high-profile legal battle.
