In a significant development in the Delhi liquor policy case, Delhi High Court judge Swarana Kanta Sharma declined to recuse herself from hearing the matter, firmly rejecting allegations of bias raised by Arvind Kejriwal. The decision comes as a setback for Kejriwal, who had sought her withdrawal citing concerns about fairness and impartiality in the proceedings.
In a detailed and strongly worded order, Justice Sharma emphasised that judicial independence cannot be compromised under pressure, stating that justice must remain unaffected by external influence or political narratives. She asserted that her constitutional oath obligates her to adjudicate matters fearlessly and without bias, making it clear that she would continue to hear the case.
Kejriwal had argued that there existed a “reasonable apprehension” of bias, pointing to the judge’s participation in events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad and the professional roles of her children as panel counsel for the central government. However, the court dismissed these concerns, clarifying that participation in professional or legal events does not imply ideological alignment, and no direct connection had been established between her family members and the case at hand.
Justice Sharma also highlighted that there is a legal presumption of judicial impartiality, which must be convincingly rebutted by the party seeking recusal. She observed that Kejriwal’s plea failed to meet this standard and instead risked undermining the credibility of the judiciary. The judge further remarked that allowing such recusal requests without substantial grounds could open the door to misuse, potentially enabling litigants to question judicial integrity for strategic advantage.
Addressing the broader implications, she described the situation as a “Catch-22,” noting that whether she chose to recuse or not, it could invite controversy. Nonetheless, she stated that stepping aside would amount to avoiding responsibility rather than upholding judicial duty. She warned that recusal under such circumstances could create a perception that judges are influenced by political considerations, which would weaken institutional trust.
The court also rejected the argument that familial professional roles could automatically constitute a conflict of interest, stating that no nexus had been demonstrated between her children’s positions and the ongoing case. She further observed that restricting the professional choices of judges’ family members would infringe upon their fundamental rights.
Concluding her order, Justice Sharma stated that recusal in this instance would not be an act of prudence but rather an abdication of judicial responsibility. She also expressed concern over what she described as a “media-driven narrative” and attempts to cast aspersions on the judiciary without accountability.
The case itself stems from a trial court’s earlier decision to clear Kejriwal and several others in the liquor policy matter, which was subsequently challenged by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The High Court is currently examining that challenge, making the judge’s decision to continue hearing the case a crucial development in the ongoing legal proceedings.
