The Delhi High Court on Monday declined the petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the excise policy case.
Justice Sharma held that the allegations of bias were not supported by any evidence. Noting that judges were presumed to act impartially, she said anyone seeking recusal must show clear and reasonable grounds to rebut that presumption. In this case, the applicants failed to meet that standard, added the judge.
The High Court noted that the plea was based on suspicion and conjecture rather than demonstrable facts. It cautioned that accepting such claims could erode public trust in the judiciary and create an undesirable precedent.
Over the issue of attending events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), Justice Sharma observed that these were professional and academic interactions related to law. She said participation in events, such as programmes on new criminal laws, on women’s day or the interaction with younger members of the bar, could not be treated as evidence of ideological bias, especially when similar engagements were common among judges.
Addressing concerns about her children being part of the Central government’s panel counsel, the Court said that a litigant must show a direct link between that fact and the case being heard. No such connection was established. It further clarified that family members of judges are free to pursue legal careers and cannot be restricted on that basis.
The Court also rejected the argument that a litigant’s apprehension alone is sufficient for recusal. It stated that mere perception, without a reasonable basis, cannot justify such a request.
The judge observed that the plea appeared to question the integrity of the institution itself and warned against attempts to influence proceedings through unverified claims or public narratives. It also pointed out that no allegations of bias were raised when earlier orders in related matters were favourable to the applicants.
The Court further noted that statements made by political figures outside court cannot be a ground for seeking recusal, as the judiciary has no control over such remarks.
Concluding that the threshold for establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias had not been met, the Court dismissed the applications. It added that stepping aside without valid reasons would affect the credibility of the judicial process and amount to a failure to discharge judicial duty.
**Background**
A trial court had discharged Kejriwal and several others in the excise policy case earlier this year. The Central Bureau of Investigation challenged that decision before the High Court, where the matter is currently pending.
The High Court had issued notice in the appeal, stayed certain directions against the investigating officer, and made preliminary observations on the trial court’s findings. Following this, Kejriwal and other accused, including Manish Sisodia and Vijay Nair, sought the judge’s recusal, which has now been declined.
The post Delhi liquor policy case: High Court rejects Arvind Kejriwal plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma appeared first on India Legal.