Delhi High Court judge Justice Suwarana Kanta Sharma on Monday dismissed applications by former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia and others seeking her dismissal from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) appeal against the lower court’s order to discharge them in the Delhi excise policy case.
In a ruling delivered over an hour, Justice Sharma noted that mere fear of not receiving relief cannot justify recusal, as it risks allowing litigants to influence the judicial process. She said there was no “clear reason” for stepping down, warning that stepping down on the basis of perceived bias would set a worrying precedent.
“Judges are bound by discipline in office and if they stoop to such defamation, it will be an attack not just on the individual judge but on the institution. Today this is the court; tomorrow it will be another court. Stepping down would also lead the public to believe that the judges are allied with a particular political party or ideology, and for their own orders, and remain impartial judges,” the court said.
Read also | ‘Decisive moment’: Delhi HC judge Swarana Kanta Sharma refuses to back down in Kejriwal liquor policy case
The court added: “If this court withdraws from this case in the absence of any clear reason, as required under the Restitution Act, it will give weight to claims that bear nothing. If it accepts these requests, it will set a disturbing precedent.”
Kejriwal had argued the petition asking Justice Sharma to step down. On April 16, the former chief minister confirmed that the judge’s children had been posted at the center and were allotted cases by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was contesting the appeal on behalf of the agency.
But Justice Sharma on Monday denied the allegations, stating that a judge cannot abdicate responsibility in the face of the allegations. She added that the request lacked evidence and was instead based on defamation and insinuations that cast doubt on her integrity.
“Today is not a dispute between opponents, but between me and the opponent. Allegations and insinuations, even if they are persistent and loud, cannot replace the evidence required for deterrence. If a response is allowed, the judicial process will not remain independent but vulnerable to allegations. Allegations and insinuations, despite their persistence and loudness, cannot replace the proof legally required to request a response. If a response is accepted on this basis, it may lead to danger. The judge noted that “the process of adjudicating it is shaped according to preference.” litigant or his discomfort, in which case justice will not be done, but justice will be administered.” This course of action is not permissible under our Constitution.
In the wake of the judgement, the BJP attacked Kejriwal, alleging that the former prime minister had tried to “question the judicial process and question the integrity of a Supreme Court judge”. “When individuals in high public office resort to such behaviour, it risks eroding public confidence in the justice system,” Prime Minister Rekha Gupta said.
Meanwhile, AAP expressed its displeasure over the decision. “Kejriwal and his colleagues, who were discharged, told the court that they have reasonable apprehensions that they will not get justice from this court. Arvind Kejriwal has listed 10 points, mentioning the main reasons for this arrest. The court has declared all these apprehensions to be legally untenable,” AAP Delhi unit president Saurabh Bharadwaj said.
On February 27, the court released Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others, holding that the CBI materials did not even reveal a prima facie case, prompting the agency to challenge the order in the Supreme Court.
On March 9, Justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s directions for administrative action against the CBI officer, terming the statements as prima facie wrong, and adjourned the ED’s proceedings.
On March 11, Kejriwal sought to have the case transferred to another judge, which was denied on March 13. He and Sisodia and four others then filed an application before the judge’s court asking her to step down.
In her judgement, the judge dismissed Kejriwal’s concerns of bias based on her attendance at events organized by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), which allegedly followed an ideology opposed to the AAP. She explained that participating in such events as a judge, whether giving lectures or dealing with members of the legal fraternity, cannot be interpreted as indicating any political affiliation.
She stressed that no litigant could be allowed to weaken the “sacred” relationship between the union and the authority, which stands above politics. She added that the judiciary cannot be placed in an ivory tower or expected to remain completely isolated from society and the legal community.
She said: “This court believes that no litigant should sever or weaken the relationship between the Bar Association and the sacred body that stands above politics at any level. The judiciary cannot be placed in an ivory tower and expected to lead a life of complete isolation, cut off from the organization of society, and even from the Bar Association.”
Addressing the AAP chief’s allegation of a conflict of interest arising from her children being on a government panel and receiving work from a legal officer in the case, the judge held that the mere assignment of the judge’s relatives was insufficient to prove bias. The litigant must show the existence of a clear relationship, demonstrating proximity, importance and influence on the current case or decision-making process of the court, which the court held that Kejriwal failed to establish.
“Merely a judge has taken the oath, the family does not swear that they will not enter the profession or do well in it. The spouses, siblings and children of a large number of judges may be in the same profession. If, as in this case, the children of a judge are born to a judge, one to her when she herself was a judicial judge, and she chooses to follow the same path, and decides to pursue the same profession, no one can take advantage of that circumstance.” He said.
She added: “A litigant cannot dictate how a judge’s children or family members will live their lives, whether they have to rise through their struggle and hard work, or whether they should be prevented from doing so in the absence of any beyond doubt evidence of abuse of the judge’s position for the benefit of her children or family, and not even a whisper about this allegation can be allowed.”
In her ruling, the judge also addressed other grounds for apprehension of bias arising from her apparent remarks on March 9, when she described the lower court’s order as wrong without hearing from the other party. Citing previous instances where interim relief was granted to Kejriwal and others without listening to opposing parties, she said such a practice was not unusual. It held that preliminary observations or interim orders, even unilaterally, did not indicate bias.
Addressing Kejriwal’s concerns of unfair hearing based on earlier orders, the bench said that none of its earlier rulings in the cases related to Sanjay Singh, Manish Sisodia and Kejriwal have been set aside or modified by the Supreme Court. It pointed out that Singh’s bail was granted on the basis of ED concession, Sisodia’s trial was delayed, and Kejriwal’s plea was transferred to a larger bench without setting aside the Supreme Court order. Rejecting allegations of bias based on Home Minister Amit Shah’s statements, the judge held that seeking disqualification on these grounds would be tantamount to proceeding on the basis of fantasies and disbelief of the incident.
The petitions are scheduled to be heard on April 29 and 30, when the CBI begins its proceedings. The court also gave Kejriwal and the other defendants a final opportunity to file their replies.
