Delhi High Court judge Justice Suwarana Kanta Sharma ruled that “baseless allegations will not decide the seats”, even as she dismissed AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking refusal to hear the tax policy case.
While rejecting Kejriwal’s plea for recusal, Justice Sharma said the recusal must “flow from the law and not from narrative” and described the dismissal as a “defining moment for the court”.
The observation came in response to a hearing on a petition filed by Kejriwal and others in the Supreme Court seeking disqualification of Justice Sharma in the liquor policy case, after the AAP leader’s move to move the case was rejected last month.
Also read: ‘Only on fiction’: HC judge slams Kejriwal for citing Amit Shah’s statement to claim bias and demand he step down
The court said that accepting such defenses on mere suspicion would undermine the judicial process and weaken institutional integrity.
Below are the most important quotes from the judgment of Justice Suwarana Kanta Sharma:
- Regarding Kejriwal’s claim about Amit Shah: On Kejriwal’s allegation that there was “fear of bias” since the minister made the statement, Justice Sharma said: “Any politician or Union minister has expressed an opinion which may be adverse to the litigant, and there is no control over what the politician or Kejriwal who is himself a politician may say in public or in politics.” “It is a matter of common language that such statements are made by opposition political parties,” she added, according to LiveLaw.
- When attending an RSS linked event: Regarding Kejriwal’s allegation that the judge attended a bar association meeting allegedly linked to the RSS, she said such associations were professional and not political in nature. It noted that many judges participate in similar events and that mere attendance as a speaker or keynote guest cannot be construed as ideological bias or raise concerns of bias.
Also Read: Setback for Kejriwal as Delhi HC judge Swarana Sharma refuses to back down from hearing liquor policy case
- There is no room for any political ideology: She said that while judges are invited as court judges, in the interaction there is no space for any political ideology. She added: “The relationship between the Bar Association and the court is not limited to courtrooms only. It is not uncommon for bar associations to regulate their functions. No litigant can be allowed to account for the relationship between the Bar Association and the court.”
- Regarding the “Government Associated Children” claim: Regarding Kejriwal’s allegations that Sharma’s children have “active professional ties” with the government, she said: “Only Kejriwal made this allegation. A number of cases have been alluded to the family. The CBI has pointed out that the numbers mentioned by Kejriwal which were also circulated on social media at his request were incorrect.”
- “If the children of politicians enter politics”: Attacking Kejriwal’s claims, she said: “If children of politicians can enter politics, how will it be fair to question when children or family of judges enter the legal profession and struggle and prove themselves like others.” She added that the relatives of this court have nothing to do with this dispute.
- The court cannot be a theater of perception: “A judge cannot withdraw to satisfy a litigant’s unfounded suspicions,” the judge said, adding that the courtroom cannot become a “stage of perception.” “The doors of the court cannot be opened wide by allowing one litigant to sow seeds of mistrust on this basis alone,” she added.
- Catch 22 case: She said she was put in an awkward position by Kejriwal, as he created a “win-win situation” for himself. Sharma also said that she will not bow to the “media-driven narrative” and abandon her duty.
The case stems from the Delhi tax policy case, where the CBI had challenged the dismissal of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others. Kejriwal and 22 others were released by the lower court on February 27 in the tax policy case.
