Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma today rejected a petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal seeking her recusal from hearing matters linked to the Delhi liquor policy case.
“I reject this application because my oath is to the Constitution. My oath taught me that justice is not about giving in to pressure, but about not surrendering to it. It is and will remain my resolve,” Justice Sharma said, adding judicial integrity cannot be put to trial by litigants.
Justice Sharma said while the easier path would have been to recuse without hearing the application, she chose to decide the issue on the merits in the interest of institutional integrity.
“While I began penning the judgment, the courtroom fell silent,” she said, adding the issue before her was not a legal question but one that put a judge and the institution itself “on trial.”
She said the impartiality of a judge is presumed unless rebutted by cogent material, and that recusal cannot be granted on the basis of “mere apprehension or personal perception” of a litigant.
“A litigant cannot be permitted to create a situation that lowers the judicial process. A lie, even if repeated a thousand times in court or on social media, does not become the truth,” Justice Sharma said.
“If I recused myself, Kejriwal would say, ‘Look I was right.’ If I don’t recuse and he fails to get any relief from me in future, he will say he knew the outcome already. If I recused myself today, I would be abandoning my duty. Arvind Kejriwal has said so many times while arguing that he is not doubting my integrity but he has doubts in his mind. Such illusions in the mind of Kejriwal cannot be ground for recusal,” Justice Sharma said.
Addressing allegations raised by Kejriwal, the judge said there was no material to substantiate claims of bias, including those relating to her participation in events organised by the Adhivakta Parishad or the professional engagements of her family members.
Referring to cases involving Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders including Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, Justice Sharma said relief granted by the Supreme Court did not amount to setting aside her reasoning on merits.
Referring to past cases involving AAP leaders, including Kejriwal and Raghav Chadha, the Delhi High Court said interim relief had been granted in their favour at earlier stages without any allegations of bias being raised at that time.
“A judicial practice accepted without objection when the order is in favour of a party cannot be objected to when it goes against them,” Justice Sharma said, and cautioned that accepting such grounds for recusal would have “deeper constitutional ramifications” and could erode public confidence in the judiciary.
“A courtroom cannot be a theatre of perception. If such applications are accepted, it would not be justice administered but justice managed,” she said.
The development comes amid ongoing proceedings in the Delhi High Court on a criminal revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which challenged a trial court order discharging all 23 accused, including Kejriwal and Sisodia, in the corruption case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy.
On March 9, a single-judge bench of Justice Sharma had issued notice to the accused on the CBI’s petition challenging the discharge order passed by a local court. She also stayed a trial court’s direction ordering departmental action against a CBI officer involved in the investigation, along with adverse remarks made against the probe agency.