The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea filed by Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking the recusal of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma from hearing the Delhi excise policy case. Justice Sharma dismissed the plea stating that the claims raised were not backed by evidence and were based only on allegations questioning her credibility.
“When I began to pen this judgment, the courtroom had fallen silent. What remained was the weight of being a judge who had taken the oath of the Constitution of India, that is Bharat. I realised my silence as a judge was itself put to test, and the question now was about the fairness of the judge and the institution itself," she said while announcing the judgement.
Judge calls situation a ‘catch-22’
While delivering the order, Justice Sharma described the situation as a difficult one for the court.
“Now, it is a Catch-22 situation of seeking a recusal. In this case, I have been placed in such a position where whether I recuse or do not recuse, questions will arise. The applicant (Kejriwal) has created a win-win situation for himself.”
She explained that stepping aside could suggest that the allegations had merit, while continuing with the case could also invite criticism.
No evidence of bias, says court
The court made it clear that allegations of bias must be supported by solid proof, not just doubts.
“The general unease of a litigant or apprehension that this court may not grant him relief must remain far below the elevated threshold required for a judge to recuse.” The judge stressed that decisions cannot be influenced by perceptions or assumptions and must be based strictly on law and facts.
Strong response on allegations involving family
A key issue raised in the plea was related to the professional roles of the judge’s children. Responding firmly, the court said there was no connection between her family members and the case.
“If the wife of a politician can become a politician, if the children of a politician can become politicians. How can it be said that the children of a judge can’t enter the profession of law? This would mean taking away the fundamental rights of a family of judges.”
The court added that no litigant has the right to question how a judge’s family lives their life. “A litigant cannot dictate how children or family members of a judge are to live their lives.”
Court warns against attacking Judiciary without proof
Justice Sharma also cautioned against making unverified claims that could harm the institution. “In the absence of any proof that the office of the court has been misused by the children of a judge, not a whisper of such allegation can be made.”
She emphasised that even if family members are part of government legal panels, it does not automatically create a conflict unless directly linked to the case. The court clarified that lawyers may represent political parties, but judgments are based only on merit.
“Some members of the bar may be representing a political party but when they appear before the court, their cases are adjudicated on merits, not political affiliations.” It also stressed that no litigant can weaken the relationship between the Bar and the Bench on political grounds.
Message on Judicial independence
In a strong message, the court said allowing such pleas without evidence could harm the justice system.“A judicial function cannot be surrendered by a judge to the mere perception of a litigant.”
The judge also warned that accepting such requests could set a wrong precedent and make courts vulnerable to pressure.
