The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking the recusal of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma from hearing matters related to the Delhi excise policy case. The court held that the allegations raised in the plea were not supported by evidence and were based on unsubstantiated claims questioning the judge’s credibility.
Justice Sharma, while delivering the order, observed that judicial decisions cannot be influenced by perceptions or assumptions and must rest solely on legal and factual grounds.
Court rejects recusal plea, cites lack of evidence
In her ruling, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma noted that the application for recusal created an unusual legal situation where any outcome would be questioned by the applicant. She described it as a difficult position for the court, stating that it placed the judge in a “Catch-22 situation.”
“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 warns against perception-based allegations
Addressing concerns raised in the plea, the court emphasised that claims of bias must be backed by strong evidence rather than speculation or perceived apprehension. It reiterated that mere dissatisfaction with judicial proceedings cannot be grounds for recusal.
“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.”
“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.”
Court defends independence and rejects family-related allegations
The court also strongly addressed allegations concerning the professional roles of the judge’s family members, stating that such arguments had no bearing on the case and could not form a basis for recusal.
“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.”
“A litigant cannot dictate how children or family members of a judge are to live their lives.”
Judiciary must not be influenced by unverified claims
The court further warned against making unsubstantiated allegations that could undermine public trust in judicial institutions, stressing that such claims cannot be entertained in the absence of proof.
“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.”
It added that professional representation of political parties by lawyers does not amount to bias, as cases are decided strictly on merits.
“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.”
Message on judicial independence
Reiterating the importance of judicial independence, the court stated that allowing recusal pleas based on perception alone could weaken the justice system and set a harmful precedent.
“A judicial function cannot be surrendered by a judge to the mere perception of a litigant.”
The court concluded that such applications, if entertained without evidence, could open the judiciary to undue pressure and compromise its integrity.