/images/ppid_a911dc6a-image-177648903628945146.webp)
Delhi High Court Judge Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday rejected former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking the court’s recusal in a case pertaining to the liquor policy excise case, saying Kejriwal had no evidence to support his claims, and his arguments were based on insinuations and doubts on her integrity and fairness.
Justice Sharma said a judge cannot recuse to satisfy a litigant’s “unfounded suspicion of bias” and “manufactured allegations”, adding that Kejriwal’s arguments have fallen short of the proof required in the law of recusal.
“A judicial function cannot be surrendered by a judge nor reputation on mere apprehension of applicant, including criticism in public domain,” she said. “Even a political leader, howsoever powerful
or influential, cannot be allowed to make such allegations against a judge.”
READ MORE: Who Is Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma? Delhi HC Judge Hearing Kejriwal’s Recusal Plea | India News – News18
What The Court Said On Kejriwal?
Responding to Kejriwal’s arguments on the judge’s links to the Adhivakta Parishad, which is connected to the BJP and RSS, Justice Sharma said the events were not political and speakers were invited to speak on legal issues. She argued that an invitation to deliver a lecture does not necessarily insinuate political bias.
She said the applicant had “selectively placed on record events of Adhivakta Parishad”, adding that the court has routinely attended functions of NLU, colleges, hospitals and lawyer forums.
“Judges are invited as judges of the court. In this interaction, there is no space for any political ideology. The relationship between the bar and bench is not confined only to courtrooms. It is not uncommon for bar associations to organise functions. No litigant can be allowed to weaken the relationship between the bar and the bench,” she said.
Judge Raps Kejriwal For Mentioning Children
After Kejriwal stated in an affidavit that the judge’s children are empanelled Central government lawyers who receive “substantial work” through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Justice Sharma responded sharply by saying that there was no link between her family members and the case at hand.
She said the litigant has to show relevance and impact on the case even if relatives are part of government panels, but no such connection had been shown by Kejriwal. She also said Kejriwal could not dictate how the children or family members of a judge can lead their lives.
“If the children of a politician can become a politician, why can’t the children of a judge enter the profession of law? This would mean taking away the fundamental rights of a family of judges.”
On allegations of bias, the court said such claims must be supported with clear evidence. “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.”
Justice Sharma On Previous AAP Judgements
Justice Sharma further said Kejriwal or AAP leaders had not made allegations of judicial bias, citing examples of previous cases in which the court had ruled in the favour. She also responded to an argument that her orders are overturned by the Supreme Court, citing the example of Sanjay Singh’s bail.
The judge also said in the case of Kejriwal’s arrest in the liquor policy scam, only the necessity of the arrest was referred to a larger bench and interim bail was granted, but the order on his arrest was not set aside. She also pointed out that no litigant or politician has the right to question judicial competence.
‘Court Will Stand Up For Itself’
Responding to Kejriwal’s written submissions on Monday, Justice Sharma said a mere apprehension that the court may not grant relief in a case cannot be grounds for seeking recusal.
“My judicial career spans 34 years. However, can it be that judges would now have to pass an additional test put by the litigant that they are fit to hear the case? They will have to prequalify a test put forward by the litigant. The judges in that case would have to satisfy the manufactured test that they have not attended the function of an organisation or that their family members are in the legal profession,” she said.
She said Kejriwal had created a ‘Catch-22’ situation, where if he does not get relief, he said he had predicted an outcome. On the other hand, a recusal would lead the public to believe that judges are aligned with a particular political party or ideology.
She argued that a recusal would carry deeper constitutional ramifications, and a political leader cannot be allowed to question judicial competence. “The arguments before this court have fallen short of the proof required in law of recusal. A judge can’t recuse to satisfy a litigant’s unfounded suspicion of bias and based on manufactured allegations.”
“This court will stand up for itself and this institution though it may appear difficult. The robe this court wears is not so light,” she added.
