Justice doesn't bow to pressure: Judge refuses to withdraw from Kejriwal's case

Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to withdraw from the Delhi liquor policy case, rejecting allegations of bias raised by AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, asserting that judges do not bow to political pressure.

In Short

• Kejriwal had sought judge's recusal from liquor policy case, alleging bias
• Justice SK Sharma said Kejriwal failed to provide evidence of partiality
• 'I will not recuse. I will hear this case,' she said while rejecting plea

In a setback for Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday refused to withdraw from the liquor policy case, rejecting the AAP national convenor's allegations of bias and fairness in hearing the matter. Justice Sharma said that justice does not bow to pressure and highlighted the judiciary's importance of maintaining impartiality.

Kejriwal had sought the recusal of Justice Sharma from hearing a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) petition in the liquor policy case, citing a “grave, bona fide and reasonable apprehension” that the proceedings before her may not be impartial or neutral.

In a strongly worded order that spanned for nearly 90 minutes, Justice Sharma rejected the recusal plea moved by Kejriwal, firmly dismissing allegations of bias and warning against attempts to undermine judicial credibility. “The floodgates can't be opened to sow seeds of mistrust,” she said, stressing that Kejriwal had failed to point to any political statement that could indicate ideological bias.

“My oath is to the Constitution. My oath has taught me that justice does not bend under pressure. Justice does not yield to any pressure. I will decide and adjudicate fearlessly without any bias. I will not recuse from this case,” she said.

“There is a presumption of impartiality of a judge and a presumption of impartiality has to be rebutted by the litigant seeking recusal of a judge,” she observed.

Justice Sharma held that the applications filed by Kejriwal and others effectively put the judiciary on trial. “The litigant has put the judiciary on trial. I choose the path to resolve the controversy. The strength of the judiciary lies in its strong resolve to decide the acquisitions. I have written the order without being affected by anything,” she said.

Addressing Kejriwal's concerns over her participation in events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), the judge clarified that these were not political in nature.

“They were programmes on new criminal laws and women's day events or to interact with younger members of the bar. Many judges have been participating in those events. Such participation cannot be used to insinuate ideological bias,” she said.

Justice Sharma described the plea as creating a “Catch-22” situation. “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 said.

On the allegation of conflict of interest due to her children being part of a central government panel counsel, Justice Sharma said no nexus had been established.

“In the opinion of this court, even if the relatives of this court are on the government panel, the litigant has to show the impact of that on the present case or the decision-making power of this court. No such nexus has been shown,” she said, adding that none of her children were connected to the liquor policy case.

She further underlined that barring judges’ children from practising law would violate fundamental rights.

“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,” Justice Sharma remarked.

She also rejected the argument that apprehension of an adverse outcome could justify recusal. “Merely stating that one will not get relief from the court cannot be a ground to seek recusal from the judge,” she said.

"A courtroom cannot be a theatre of perception. In case this court withdraws from this case in absence of any demonstrable cause, it would attach weight to allegations which carry none," she added.

Warning of wider implications, the court said a recusal would signal that judges are aligned with political ideologies. “This court, by penning a recusal, cannot allow this. I asked myself what could happen if I did not recuse... and what would happen if I recused,” Justice Sharma said, reflecting on the consequences.

She also noted that stepping aside would have been the easier option. “The easier path of recusal would have offered a quiet exit,” she said, while expressing concern over attempts to attach a “media driven narrative” and instances of “vilification without accountability” to the proceedings.

Rejecting the plea, Justice Sharma concluded that recusal in such circumstances would not be prudence but “abdication of duty” and an “act of surrender.”

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

A trial court on February 27 cleared Kejriwal and 22 others in the Delhi liquor policy case, a decision later challenged by the CBI and now under consideration before Justice Sharma.

On March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice on the CBI’s plea and stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental proceedings against the investigating officer. She also flagged certain findings in the lower court’s order as “erroneous” and directed the trial court to defer proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which stems from the CBI’s FIR.

Following this, Kejriwal and other accused – Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai and Chanpreet Singh Rayat – moved applications seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal from the matter.

Kejriwal argued that the judge should not hear the case as her son and daughter serve as panel counsel for the central government, which, he contended, gave rise to a potential conflict of interest.

- Ends