Justice Swarnakanta Sharma of Delhi High Court said on Monday that mere concern that no one will get relief from the court cannot be the basis for recusal (removing oneself from the case). He rejected the recusal petitions of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal and others in the Delhi Excise Policy scam case.
Justice Sharma clearly said, ‘If this court refuses, it will be a defeat for the organization. This would indicate that the judge and the court can be bent and changed. The petitions are rejected. He stressed that personal apprehensions did not cross the level of partisanship. ‘Recusal comes from the law, not the narrative. This is a decisive moment for the court.
Also read: AAP surrounds Justice Swarnakanta? Distanced himself from Naresh Balyan case
The judge gave his arguments
The judge gave many strong arguments in his order. He said that the judge should not abandon judicial responsibility in the face of allegations. Personal attacks are actually attacks on the institution. The recusal file in the case did not come with evidence, but with doubts, allegations and innuendos on his character.
Justice Sharma warned, ‘Judges are bound by the discipline of their post. If he succumbs to such insult, it will be an attack not just on a single judge but on the entire institution. Today this court, tomorrow another court. He said that the recusal will make the public feel that the judge is inclined towards some party or ideology.
‘Judicial integrity cannot be tested by a litigant. A person suing cannot pass judgment on the judge without evidence. It would set a dangerous precedent if the court retreated merely on perceived bias. This dispute is not between two litigants, but between the judge and the litigant. No matter how strong the allegations are, evidence is necessary for recusal. If there is a refusal, the judicial process will not be independent but will become weak in front of the allegations.
What did the judge say on ABAP programs?
Kejriwal had accused the judge of bias, saying that he participated in four programs of All India Advocates Council (ABAP). AAP said that this organization is associated with RSS and is against the ideology of AAP.
Responding to this, Justice Sharma said that ABAP programs are professional conferences of lawyers and not political ones. Many judges have been attending such programs in the past also. The court said that the petitioner presented his participation records in a ‘selective’ manner.
Also read: ‘You went to RSS programme’, what did Kejriwal say about Judge Swarn Kanta?
It is important to maintain a healthy relationship between the bench and the bar (lawyers). This relationship is not limited to the courtroom only, informal meetings are also a part of it. It is not right to stop them on the basis of the assumptions of those suing them.
The judge warned that if this happened, ‘floodgates’ would open and there would be distrust in the courts. Judges will stop attending bar programs. ‘Judiciary cannot be kept in an ivory palace.’
What is the matter?
CBI and ED had accused many AAP leaders including Kejriwal in the Delhi liquor policy scam. In February 2025, the trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 others. The court said that CBI does not have enough evidence.
CBI challenged this decision in the High Court. In Justice Sharma’s first hearing in the court on March 9, he described some of the trial court’s observations as ‘incorrect’ and stayed departmental action against the CBI officer.
Kejriwal said that this order was given after listening to CBI only for 5 minutes, nothing was heard from his side. Earlier in the trial court also, Justice Sharma’s bench had rejected the bail petitions of Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and K Kavita.
What did Kejriwal say?
The controversy arose when Justice Sharma was hearing cases related to the alleged scam in Delhi’s excise (liquor sale) policy. On February 27 this year, a trial court had acquitted Kejriwal and 22 other accused, holding that on the basis of the evidence available with the CBI, no case was made out to go to trial. After this CBI challenged that order in the High Court. During the first hearing of the CBI plea on March 9, Justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental action against a CBI officer. He also termed some of the observations of the trial court as ‘prima facie wrong’.
Kejriwal later argued in his court that the order was passed after listening to the CBI for only five minutes, and without listening to him (Kejriwal) even once.
Earlier, when the matter was before the trial court, its bench had booked Kejriwal, his fellow AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, and Telangana politician K. The bail pleas filed by Kavita were rejected; This happened when CBI and Enforcement Directorate strengthened their stand in this case.
CBI’s answer
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta called the recusal petition a ‘dangerous precedent’. Said that the judge keeps attending Bar Association programs. The judge’s children have nothing to do with this case. He is an independent lawyer.
Mehta said that it is a question of institutional respect. Recusal based on baseless allegations will create a wrong tradition. He also demanded from the judge to take contempt action against Kejriwal.
Also read: ‘Judge’s children work at Tushar Mehta’s house…’, Kejriwal’s affidavit goes viral
What did Justice Sharma say?
Justice Sharma said, ‘You say that you respect me. I respect every litigant. The rules of the court will not change for anyone.
This decision is not just about a case, but is related to the independence and dignity of the judiciary. Justice Sharma made it clear that decisions cannot be changed by putting pressure on the court. If refusal is sought every time on the grounds of ‘fear of bias’ then the justice system will become weak.
On behalf of Kejriwal, it was said that having children in the Central Government panel is a conflict of interest, but the CBI rejected it.
Comments are closed.