Delhi HC rejects Kejriwal’s plea to remove judge from liquor policy case, dismisses bias claims

The Delhi High Court on Monday rejected AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the liquor policy case, holding that allowing such requests would undermine judicial independence.Dismissing the application, Justice Sharma questioned the very basis of the plea, remarking, “Why should a judge undergo an agnipareeksha (by being judged by a litigant)?” Kejriwal, who argued his case in person before the court, had sought her recusal citing an apprehension of bias.The former Delhi Chief Minister alleged a conflict of interest, claiming that Justice Sharma’s children are empanelled with the Central government and have been delegated work by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is appearing for the CBI in the matter. He also flagged her participation in events linked to RSS-affiliated bodies, arguing that his political opposition to the ideology raised concerns of bias.However, the court firmly rejected these claims, stating that recusal cannot be based on “unfounded suspicion” or “manufactured allegations.” Justice Sharma observed that “a politician cannot be permitted to cross the boundary and cannot judge judicial competence,” adding that such assessments lie with higher courts.“A recusal would lead the public to believe that judges are aligned with a particular political party or ideology. This court, by penning a recusal cannot allow this,” she said, warning that conceding to such pleas would set a dangerous precedent.The judge emphasised that the allegations lacked any concrete evidence and were built on “aspersions, insinuations and doubts” about her integrity. “If I were to accept these applications it would set a troubling precedent. It becomes my bounden duty to answer it fearlessly,” she said.Addressing concerns around her children’s empanelment with the government, Justice Sharma said there was no demonstrable nexus with the case. “Even if relatives are empanelled on government panels, the litigant has to show relevance and impact on this case. No such nexus has been shown,” she noted.She further clarified that a litigant cannot dictate the professional choices of a judge’s family in the absence of proof of misuse of office. “A judge can’t recuse to satisfy a litigant’s unfounded suspicion of bias,” she added.Read More: Who is Swarna Kanta Sharma, the judge Arvind Kejriwal wants off his caseOn claims linked to public perception and social media chatter, the court dismissed their relevance, stating that judicial decisions are based on records, not narratives. “A lie even if repeated thousand times… doesn’t become a truth,” Justice Sharma remarked.The court also underlined that accepting such arguments would effectively bar judges from hearing a wide range of cases involving the Union government, calling it an untenable position.The matter stems from the CBI’s appeal against a trial court order that discharged Kejriwal and several others in the alleged liquor policy case. Following the recusal ruling, the High Court will now hear the CBI’s arguments on April 29-30.

Source link