By raising apprehensions about the neutrality of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Judge, Delhi High Court, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal drew the ire of the HC Judge. She dismissed the recusal pleas in the liquor policy case, saying that the mere apprehension that one may not get relief from a court cannot be a ground for recusal of a judge from a case.
She ruled, “If this court was to recuse, it would be an act of surrender and a signal that institution including judge and the court can be bent, shaken and changed. Applications seeking recusal are rejected. Personal apprehension have not been able to pass the threshold of the apprehension of bias. Recusal has to step from law, and not from narrative; and this is a defining moment for the court.”
The Judge listed out multiple arguments in order as to why she won't recuse. She said that a judge “cannot abdicate judicial responsibility in the face of allegations. The file did not arrive with evidence but it arrived on my table with aspersions, insinuations and doubts cast on my integrity. Judges are bound by the discipline of their office, and if they bow down to such vilification, it would not only be an attack on the individual judge but on the institution. Today it is this court; tomorrow it will be another court."
She further said, "Judicial integrity cannot be put to trial by a litigant. A litigant cannot judge a judge without any material. Urging this court to withdraw solely on the basis of perceived bias and if I would accept this, it would settle a disturbing precedent."
She noted that "Today it is not a dispute between two litigants but between myself and the litigant. Allegations and insinuations though persistent and loud cannot replace the proof required for recusal. In case recusal is allowed, the judicial process will not remain independent but vulnerable to allegations.”
On attending the ABAP Event
Kejriwal’s argument was based on the ground that the judge had attended four programmes of the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), an organisation which, according to him, is aligned with the RSS and follows an “ideology opposed to that of the Aam Aadmi Party”. The Judge clarified that the ABAP events are professional gatherings of lawyers, not political functions. Furthermore, several judges have attended such programmes in the past.
“The organisation’s functions were not political in nature but consisted of programmes organised by a body of lawyers where professional discussions were held," she said.
"Judiciary cannot be made to be placed in an ivory tower. Floodgates of courts cannot be open to plant seeds of mistrust solely on this cases and such would lead to judges declining inviaiton of bar bodies and would be forced to withdraw from public disclosure. Impartiality is a presumption in favour of a judge and impartiality is not a legal requirement but an ethical one,” the HC judge said.
On the Empanelment of her Children as Govt Counsel
Regarding the allegation of bias by Kejriwal on the ground that her children are Central Government Counsel, she said, "A litigant can't dictate how children of judge have to live their lives, in absence of any proof that office of judge was misused. If children of politicians can enter politics, how will it be fair to question when children or family of judge enter legal profession and struggle and prove themselves like others...Relatives of this court have no connection with this dispute. They have no proximity to the lis...if such allegation is accepted, then the court will not be able to hear any matter in which Union of India is a party...Such insinuation is not only unfounded but also overlooks judicial office and integrity attached to it."
Brief Background
Justice Sharma is presiding over cases involving an alleged scam in the Delhi excise policy on liquor sales.
A trial court had discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused in February 2026, finding that the CBI's material did not form a case worth going to even trial. The CBI challenged the order before the High Court, and at the first hearing itself, Justice Sharma, stayed the trial court's direction for departmental proceedings against a CBI officer and called some of the trial court's observations "prima facie misconceived”.
Earlier, when the case was before the trial court, her bench had rejected bail petitions of Kejriwal, his other AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, and Telangana politician K Kavitha.
Picture Source :
