Delhi High Court Rejects Arvind Kejriwal’s Recusal Plea in Excise Policy Case

The Delhi High Court on Monday rejected a plea by former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from proceedings related to the liquor policy excise case. The court held that the application was unsupported by evidence and rested on “insinuations” and “unfounded suspicions” regarding judicial bias.

In a strongly worded order, Justice Sharma observed that a judge cannot withdraw from a case merely to accommodate a litigant’s apprehensions. “A judicial function cannot be surrendered on the basis of mere allegations or public criticism,” she stated, adding that Kejriwal’s submissions fell short of the legal threshold required to establish grounds for recusal.

The court emphasised that even influential political figures cannot be permitted to cast aspersions on the integrity of the judiciary without substantiated proof. “A litigant’s unfounded suspicion of bias and manufactured allegations cannot dictate recusal,” the judge noted.

Allegations of Bias Dismissed

Addressing Kejriwal’s concerns regarding Justice Sharma’s association with the Adhivakta Parishad—an organisation often linked to the BJP and RSS—the court clarified that such engagements were strictly professional and non-political in nature. Invitations to speak at legal forums, it said, do not imply ideological alignment.

The judge further remarked that the applicant had selectively presented information about such events, while ignoring the judiciary’s routine participation in academic and professional gatherings hosted by law universities, bar associations and other institutions. “Judges attend such functions in their judicial capacity. There is no space for political ideology in such interactions,” the order stated.

Family Links Not Relevant to Case

The court also dismissed allegations relating to the professional roles of the judge’s family members. Kejriwal had claimed that her children, who are empanelled as Central government lawyers, receive work through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

Rejecting the argument, Justice Sharma held that no connection had been established between her family members and the present case. She underscored that litigants cannot dictate the professional choices of a judge’s relatives. “If the children of a politician can enter politics, the children of a judge are equally entitled to pursue a career in law,” she observed, framing the issue as one of fundamental rights.

Reference to Previous Judgements

The court also pointed out that neither Kejriwal nor leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party had raised concerns of bias in earlier cases where rulings had been in their favour. It cited past instances, including proceedings involving party leader Sanjay Singh, to underline the inconsistency in the present allegations.

On the argument that her orders had been overturned by the Supreme Court of India, Justice Sharma clarified that in the matter concerning Kejriwal’s arrest, only the question of necessity of arrest had been referred to a larger bench, while interim bail was granted. The original order had not been set aside.

‘Court Will Stand Up for Itself’

In her concluding remarks, Justice Sharma warned against setting a precedent where litigants attempt to “prequalify” judges based on personal perceptions or associations. She described the plea as creating a “Catch-22” situation—where denial of relief would be cited as proof of bias, while recusal would fuel public suspicion about judicial independence.

“My judicial career spans over three decades. Judges cannot be subjected to tests devised by litigants to determine their suitability to hear a case,” she said.

Stressing the broader constitutional implications, the court held that permitting such arguments would undermine institutional integrity. “This court will stand up for itself and for the institution it represents. The robe this court wears is not so light,” Justice Sharma remarked, firmly rejecting the plea.

The ruling reinforces the principle that allegations of judicial bias must be backed by clear, credible evidence, and cannot be founded on conjecture or perception.