Delhi High Court judge Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday held that a mere apprehension of not receiving relief from a court cannot be a valid ground for recusal, as she rejected pleas filed by AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and others in connection with the liquor policy case.
Delivering her ruling, Justice Sharma said that stepping aside under such circumstances would amount to surrender and signal that judicial institutions can be influenced. She emphasized that recusal must be guided by law and not by narrative, calling the moment a defining one for the court. She observed that the apprehensions raised did not meet the legal threshold required to establish bias.
The judge outlined several reasons for refusing to recuse herself, noting that a judge cannot abandon judicial responsibility in response to allegations. She said that personal attacks on a judge effectively amount to attacks on the institution itself. In this instance, she remarked that the plea seeking recusal contained no evidence but instead relied on insinuations and doubts about her integrity.
Justice Sharma added that yielding to such accusations would undermine both the individual judge and the judiciary as a whole. She warned that if such arguments were accepted, it could create a precedent where judges are perceived as favoring particular parties or ideologies. She stressed that judicial integrity cannot be put on trial by litigants and that unsubstantiated claims cannot dictate judicial conduct.
She further stated that the issue had shifted from a dispute between parties to a challenge directed at the court itself. According to her, persistent allegations without proof cannot justify recusal, and allowing such pleas would make the judicial process vulnerable to pressure and erode its independence.
Addressing concerns raised about her participation in events organized by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, which Kejriwal claimed is aligned with the RSS, Justice Sharma clarified that these were professional gatherings of lawyers rather than political events. She pointed out that several judges have attended similar programs in the past and that such interactions are part of maintaining a healthy relationship between the bench and the bar.
The court also noted that the records of her participation had been selectively presented. She said that professional engagement between judges and legal bodies extends beyond courtrooms and cannot be restricted based on litigants’ perceptions. Warning against creating mistrust, she observed that such arguments could discourage judges from participating in professional forums. She reiterated that impartiality is presumed in favor of a judge and cannot be questioned on weak grounds.
The controversy arose in cases related to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam, where Justice Sharma has been hearing matters following a trial court order that discharged Kejriwal and several others. The CBI challenged that decision in the High Court, and Justice Sharma had earlier stayed certain directions of the trial court while making preliminary observations. Kejriwal later argued that these observations were made without hearing his side.
In his plea seeking her recusal, Kejriwal raised multiple objections, including her participation in events linked to a lawyers’ body associated with the RSS. He also alleged a conflict of interest, pointing out that her children are impaneled as government counsel and receive work through a structure led by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the CBI in the case.
Kejriwal, who argued his plea in person, contended that the trial court’s detailed order had been set aside too quickly and cited a Supreme Court judgment to argue that even a reasonable apprehension of bias can justify recusal.
The CBI opposed the plea, with Solicitor General Mehta describing it as a dangerous precedent. He maintained that judges regularly attend professional events and that Justice Sharma’s children had no involvement in the case. The agency argued that they are independent practitioners and not connected to the proceedings.
During hearings, the judge allowed Kejriwal to submit additional written arguments to ensure he felt heard, while clarifying that court procedures would not be altered for any individual.
Justice Sharma reserved her order last week and delivered it on April 20, firmly rejecting the recusal requests and underscoring the need to protect judicial independence from unfounded allegations.
