Delhi High Court judge Swarana Kanta Sharma, while refusing to accept Arvind Kejriwal’s plea for her to drop his case, also took up his claim that Union Home Minister Amit Shah said he would eventually have to go to the Supreme Court in the case.
Kejriwal and his party said this amounted to Shah’s assumption that the SC would issue an order against Kejriwal and others in the corruption case in which the lower court had discharged them.
Read also | ‘Decisive moment’: Delhi HC judge Swarana Kanta Sharma refuses to back down in Kejriwal liquor policy case
“Any politician can express his opinion.”
Regarding Kejriwal’s allegation that there was an “apprehension of bias” since the minister made the statement, Justice Suwarana Kanta Sharma said that seeking to disqualify a judge on the ground that a politician had made a comment, would be an action “on the basis of pure imagination”.
She noted that the court has no control over what a politician may choose to say in the public sphere.
“Any politician or Union Minister may express an opinion which may be contrary to the litigant. There is no control over what the politician or Mr Kejriwal, who is a politician himself, may say in public or in politics. Such statements are known to be made by political parties in opposition,” it said.
“Mere fear is not enough.”
She added: “Impartiality is a presumption in favor of the judge. It is not a legal requirement, but rather a moral requirement. When a person requests a response, the opponent must refute this presumption. The mere fear or personal awareness of the litigant is not enough.”
On February 27, the court released all 23 accused in the case, including AAP leaders Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, and Telangana politician K Kavitha.
The court also strongly criticized the Central Bank of Iraq’s investigation into the case.
After the CBI filed an appeal before the HC challenging the dismissal, Kejriwal filed his application seeking disqualification of Justice Sharma and submitted his submissions in person. Others, including Sisodia and AAP’s Durgesh Pathak, made similar appeals.
After the judgment was pronounced, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the CBI and the government, described the ruling as a “defining moment for the institution”.
He said: “There is no bitterness towards the petitioner, and the court has established a law regarding response.”
The judge said these recusal requests will have no effect when she finally decides the matter on the CBI’s appeal against Kejriwal and relieves others from service in the corruption case.
