In a significant legal development on Monday, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court formally declined a request made by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal. The plea asked for her to step down—or recuse herself—from presiding over matters involving the alleged Delhi Excise Policy scam. Delivering a comprehensive and firm verdict that lasted 90 minutes, Justice Sharma addressed what she described as a shameful attempt to cast doubt on her professional integrity and personal honesty.

The judge was clear in her assessment, noting that the petition filed by Kejriwal was built upon “unfounded suspicions, conjectures and manufactured allegations” rather than any actual or tangible conflict of interest that would require her to step aside from the case.

The Grounds for the Recusal Plea

The request for recusal was brought forward by Arvind Kejriwal and his co-accused in the liquor policy case, Manish Sisodia. Their legal team presented three primary reasons why they believed Justice Sharma should not hear the case:

1. The fact that her children are currently serving as legal counsels on the central government’s panel.
2. Her previous attendance at events hosted by the Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyers’ forum associated with the RSS.
3. Specific observations she made in previous judicial orders that were subsequently modified by the Supreme Court.

Justice Sharma systematically addressed and dismissed these claims, pointing out that such a move by the AAP leader appeared to be a tactic aimed at putting the judiciary itself on trial.

Choosing the Difficult Path for Justice

Justice Sharma acknowledged that stepping away from the case would have been the "easy" route to take personally. However, she explained her decision to stay, noting that if a judge surrenders their reputation when faced with allegations without addressing them, it becomes nearly impossible to reclaim that standing later. She emphasized that the suitability or competence of a judge is a matter for a higher court to determine, stating firmly that “once reputation is surrendered by judge when allegations are levelled, if not dealt with, then it will be very difficult to reclaim.” She further clarified that a judge’s competence will be decided by the higher court, not by a politician or a litigant.

Addressing the Adhivakta Parishad Allegations

Regarding her participation in the lawyers' forum events, Justice Sharma defended the nature of these gatherings. She clarified that the events were focused on the law rather than partisan politics. She stated: “The events were not political. Speakers were invited to speak on legal issues. In past many judges of this country have been participating in them. Merely because i was invited to deliver lecture, cannot be basis to insinuate political bias.”

She warned that the legal system must be protected from such strategic doubts, adding that the “floodgates of court cannot be opened by allowing a litigant to plant seeds of distrust solely on this basis.”

Defending Family and Professional Independence

One of the more personal points of the plea concerned her children's employment with the government. Justice Sharma noted that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) confirmed that neither of her relatives had ever appeared in or been connected to the excise policy case in any capacity. She argued that simply being on a government panel does not create a conflict unless a direct link to the case is proven.

“CBi stated that neither of the relatives of this court (her children) appeared or were connected with the excise policy case before any court in any capacity. Even if relatives are empanelled on govt panels, the litigant has to show relevance and impact on this case. No such nexus has been shown. Their empanelled or relationship has no connection with this dispute,” she stated.

She further drew a comparison to the political world, asking, “If children of politicians can enter politics, how will it be fair to question when children or family of a judge enter the legal profession and struggle and prove themselves like others?”

A Career Defined by Three Decades of Service

With 34 years of experience in the judiciary, Justice Sharma maintained that social media pressure or external campaigns would not influence her judgment or define her honesty. She stood firm against the idea that a litigant could control the private professional lives of a judge's family members without evidence of wrongdoing.

“This court having served as judge for nearly 34 years is adequately trained to pay any heed to whatever is said on social media. But such campaigns are brought in proceedings, judicial proceedings are adjudicated on the basis on records and not what is said on social media. Many Spouses, siblings and children of judges are there in this profession. When my children were born when I was a judicial magistrate, it cannot be exploited by anyone. Litigant can’t dictate how children of judge have to live their lives, in absence of any proof that office of judge was misused,” Justice Sharma affirmed.

Following the dismissal of the recusal plea, the court has scheduled the main hearings for the case to take place on April 29 and 30. The other respondents involved have been directed to submit their formal responses by this coming Saturday.