The Delhi High Court has rejected a request by Arvind Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing matters linked to the controversial Delhi Excise Policy Case, ruling that allegations of bias must be supported by clear evidence rather than perception or speculation.
In a detailed order that strongly defended the independence of the judiciary, Justice Sharma observed that the plea effectively attempted to place the judge and the institution of the court under scrutiny rather than allowing the court to examine the case before it. She noted that recusal cannot become a strategic tool in the hands of litigants.
According to the court, judicial impartiality is presumed unless proven otherwise. Mere apprehension or suspicion cannot replace concrete material. The judge also pointed out contradictions in the arguments raised by the applicants. On one hand, they expressed confidence in the judge’s integrity, while on the other they demanded that she step aside from the case.
Justice Sharma said withdrawing from the matter would have been the easier path after her impartiality had been questioned. However, she decided to hear the recusal application in order to ensure transparency and fairness. Allowing recusal on such grounds, she warned, could open the door for litigants to engage in “forum shopping,” where parties attempt to choose judges they believe may favour them.
The plea had also referred to statements allegedly made by Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Justice Sharma dismissed that argument outright, stating that courts cannot be influenced by political remarks. Political commentary, she said, lies outside the control of the judiciary and cannot determine whether a judge should hear a case.
Another issue raised by the applicants related to the professional roles of the judge’s children, who were said to be empanelled as government counsel. Justice Sharma clarified that no link had been shown between their professional assignments and the excise policy case. She stressed that a litigant cannot question the career choices of a judge’s family members without any evidence of misuse of office.
The Central Bureau of Investigation had also clarified before the court that the judge’s children had no role in the case under investigation.
Addressing references to discussions circulating on social media, the judge said courts decide cases based on official records and legal arguments, not on online campaigns or repeated allegations. Repetition of claims on digital platforms, she noted, does not convert them into facts.
Justice Sharma also responded to arguments citing her earlier judicial orders in matters involving leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party such as Manish Sisodia and Raghav Chadha. She pointed out that the Supreme Court of India had not made adverse observations against those decisions. In fact, interim relief had been granted to AAP leaders in certain cases without any allegations of bias being raised at the time.
The judge observed that silence earlier cannot suddenly be turned into suspicion later simply because the proceedings have taken a different direction.
The court also addressed objections related to Justice Sharma’s participation in events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad. She clarified that such engagements were professional interactions concerning legal issues and part of the normal relationship between judges and the Bar. Treating such participation as proof of ideological alignment, she warned, would isolate judges from professional discourse.
In her concluding remarks, Justice Sharma described the situation created by the plea as a “catch-22.” If the court denied relief, it could be portrayed as evidence of bias. If it granted the plea, it could appear as though the court had yielded to pressure. Judicial conduct, she said, cannot be dictated by such narratives.
The court ultimately held that the recusal applications were based on insinuations rather than credible evidence and therefore failed the legal test required to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias. The plea was dismissed, allowing the proceedings in the excise policy matter to continue before the same bench.