Delhi High Court Judge Refuses to Recuse from Kejriwal Excise Case, Rejects Plea as Based on Conjectures
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma says recusal would erode public trust in judiciary; rejects claims of conflict of interest over family government roles
Quick Look
- Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to recuse from hearing Arvind Kejriwal's excise police case, rejecting his plea as based on "conjectures and insinuations".
- The judge stated Kejriwal failed to demonstrate any ideological bias or conflict of interest, emphasizing that recusal would open "floodgates to sow seeds of mistrust" in the judiciary.
- She addressed concerns about her children's roles in government panel counsel, saying no nexus was shown between their positions and this case.
AI-generated summary
New Delhi: Holding that the "narratives" raised in the application filed by former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, asking her to recuse from hearing the Delhi excise police case, are "based on conjectures and insinuations", justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court junked a plea filed Kejriwal and other AAP politicians.
Refusing to recuse, she said Kejriwal failed to point out any political statement made by her which would be indicative of any ideological bias on her part. In a detailed verdict, justice Sharma ruled that "floodgates can't be opened to sow seeds of mistrust".
"A recusal would lead the public to believe that judges are aligned with a particular political party or ideology... As curtains are drawn, I must add that the file seeking recusal did not arrive with evidence; it arrived on my table with aspersions, insinuations and doubts cast on my integrity, fairness, and impartiality," she said.
On her attending events organised by Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, as raised by Kejriwal in his plea, justice Sharma said the same were not political events. "They were programmes on new criminal laws and the women's day events or to interact with younger members of the bar. Many judges have been participating in those events. Such participation cannot be used to insinuate ideological bias," she ruled.
As regards Kejriwal's contention that her children are part of the central government panel counsel and there would be conflict of interest in her hearing the case, she ruled that such conflict should be clearly demonstrated in the particular case. "In the opinion of this court, even if relatives of this court are on the government panel, the litigant has to show the impact of that on the present case or the decision-making power of this court. No such nexus has been shown," she said.
She further ruled that "the litigant (Kejriwal) has put the institution of judiciary on trial. I choose the path to resolve the controversy... I have written the order without being affected by anything".
In a related development, justice Sharma recused from hearing a plea filed by former AAP MLA Naresh Balyan, seeking bail in a case filed against him under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. She said the case will be listed before a different bench on April 23. In March, she hauled up Delhi Police for its failure to complete probe even though he has been in prison since 2024.
