Delhi HC judge Swarana Kanta Sharma rejects to recuse from hearing Kejriwal's liquor policy case

In a significant ruling, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court has firmly rejected the plea for her recusal from the liquor policy case, which prominently features AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal. The judge's decision, delivered with strong conviction, underscores a commitment to upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Justice Sharma articulated that the threshold for proving bias had not been met, emphasizing that recusal must be grounded in established legal principles rather than public narratives or perceived pressures.

“

Personal apprehension have not been able to pass the threshold of the apprehension of bias. Recusal has to stem from law and not from narrative and this is a defining moment for the court.

Justice Sharma's pronouncement that "recusal has to stem from law and not from narrative" sends a powerful message about the judiciary's resilience. She further stated that acceding to the recusal request would amount to an "act of surrender," potentially signaling that judicial institutions, including judges and courts, are susceptible to external influence. This stance is crucial in maintaining public trust and ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted without fear or favor, especially in high-profile cases involving political figures.

“

If this court was to recuse, it would be an act of surrender and a signal that instiuton including judge and the court can be bent, shaken and changed. Application seeking recusal are rejected.

The case itself revolves around allegations concerning a liquor policy implemented during Kejriwal's tenure as Delhi's chief minister. The application for recusal was filed by Kejriwal and five others, who sought to have Justice Sharma step aside from hearing the CBI's appeal against a trial court's order. The judge's refusal to recuse, despite acknowledging challenges to her impartiality, highlights her determination to proceed with the case, asserting that fairness demands hearing the arguments rather than yielding to apprehension.

“

I was faced with situations where my impartially and dignity was challenged. The natural instinct was to recuse without hearing applications.

Furthermore, Justice Sharma addressed Arvind Kejriwal's request to file a rejoinder, even as he appeared virtually without legal representation. While acknowledging the registry's rules, she demonstrated judicial flexibility by allowing his pleadings to be treated as written submissions. This indulgence, she noted, was an extraordinary step taken to ensure Kejriwal felt heard, even as she maintained that the court's rules would not be altered for any individual litigant. This approach balances procedural adherence with a commitment to natural justice, ensuring all parties have an opportunity to present their case.

“

You say you have respect for me. I have respect for every litigant. The rule of court will not be changed for anyone, so I will treat it as written submissions. I am taking it on record. I am giving the indulgence to Mr Kejriwal.