- Justice Sharma denied recusal, stating it protects judicial dignity.
- Court dismissed petitions, noting attempts to build media narrative.
- Judge asserted impartiality, hearing case without external pressure.
The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to allow Justice Swarnakanta Sharma to recuse herself from hearing the Delhi excise policy case, while also dismissing petitions filed by Arvind Kejriwal and other accused.
Explaining her decision, the judge said stepping aside would have been the simpler option but not the correct one.
Recusal: The Easy Way Out
“Recusal could have been an easy way out, a simple escape route. But this court understands that the dignity of a judge’s office demands restraint and silence. However, such silence should not be of a nature that harms the judicial institution itself. Every allegation raises a question mark on the judiciary as a collective institution.”
She added that abandoning the matter without adjudication would have undermined her duty.
“The position of a judge demands detachment from oneself. It would have been like surrender if I had abandoned my responsibility without hearing the application. That would have been the easier path, because then no one would have said anything about me or my family. But in the interest of the institution, it is not right for me to give up my responsibility without delivering a decision.”
Allegations ‘Not Relevant’ To Case
Addressing the accusations raised, the court said they were unrelated to the issues under consideration.
“The allegations made and the relationships referred to were not relevant to the issues in this case. These proceedings were used to try to build a narrative in the media. This court has decided the matter without any pressure and with complete impartiality.”
She further cautioned against allowing unverified claims to influence judicial functioning.
“Today it is not a dispute between two litigants but between myself and the litigant. Allegations and insinuations though persistent and loud cannot replace the proof required for recusal. In case recusal is allowed, the judicial process will not remain independent but vulnerable to allegations.”
On Attending ABAP Events
Responding to concerns over her participation in programmes organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), the judge clarified that these were professional, not political, engagements.
“The organisation’s functions were not political in nature but consisted of programmes organised by a body of lawyers where professional discussions were held.”
She noted that such interactions form part of maintaining a healthy relationship between the bench and the bar and warned against opening the “floodgates” of mistrust.
“Judiciary cannot be made to be placed in an ivory tower. Floodgates of courts cannot be open to plant seeds of mistrust solely on this basis… Impartiality is a presumption in favour of a judge and impartiality is not a legal requirement but an ethical one.”
Background Of The Dispute
The controversy arose during proceedings linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. After a trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 others on February 27, the Central Bureau of Investigation challenged the order before the High Court.
Kejriwal sought the judge’s recusal, alleging apprehension of bias, including references to her attendance at ABAP events and the professional roles of her children as government-empanelled lawyers.
He also argued that a detailed trial court order based on 40,000 documents had been effectively set aside after a brief hearing.
CBI Opposes Recusal Plea
The CBI opposed the request, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta calling it a “dangerous precedent” and maintaining that judges routinely attend professional events.
The agency also said the judge’s children had no role in the case.
Court Emphasises Institutional Integrity
In rejecting the plea, the court underscored that recusal cannot be granted on unsubstantiated grounds and warned that doing so could weaken judicial independence.
The judge reiterated that impartiality is presumed and cannot be questioned on tenuous claims, stressing that the integrity of the judicial process must be preserved.
