The Arvind Kejriwal-led challenge in the Delhi excise policy case took a fresh turn on Monday after the Delhi High Court rejected his plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
Kejriwal, who appeared in person during earlier hearings, had asked the judge to step aside from hearing the matter. The case relates to the CBI’s challenge to a trial court order that discharged him and other accused in the alleged liquor policy irregularities.
The plea had drawn attention because it is rare for a litigant especially a senior political leader to directly question a judge’s impartiality in open court.
What Kejriwal argued
Kejriwal had claimed there was a reasonable apprehension that he may not receive a fair hearing. Among his key arguments was that the judge’s children were empanelled as lawyers for the central government and received work from the Solicitor General, who represents the CBI in the case.
He also pointed to earlier court observations and proceedings which, according to him, created a perception of bias. Reports suggest he listed several reasons, including the pace of hearings and certain judicial remarks, to support his request.
The plea was strongly opposed by the prosecution, with the Solicitor General calling it motivated and lacking merit.
Court’s strong rejection
Rejecting the plea, Justice Sharma made it clear that the request did not meet the legal threshold required for recusal. She observed that the application was not supported by concrete evidence.
In a sharp remark, the judge said the plea came with “aspersions, insinuations and doubts” rather than proof.
She also stressed that courts cannot step aside simply because allegations are made, as this would undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
At one point, she said firmly that she would not withdraw from the case and would continue to perform her duty. The court emphasised that yielding to such requests could affect the credibility of the institution itself.
Message on judicial independence
The judgment underlined a larger principle that judicial independence cannot be questioned lightly. Justice Sharma noted that allowing such pleas without solid grounds could open the floodgates for litigants to seek recusal based on mere suspicion.
She also made it clear that a judge’s integrity cannot be judged through unverified claims or indirect associations.
The ruling sends a strong message that recusal is an exception, not a tool to be used in litigation strategy.
What happens next
With the recusal plea dismissed, the main case will now proceed before the same bench. The High Court has already listed the matter for further hearing later this month.
The outcome of the case remains significant, as it will determine whether the discharge of Kejriwal and others in the excise policy matter stands or is set aside.
