The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant blow to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by dismissing his petition seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the excise policy case. The court ruled that the allegations of bias leveled against the judge were based on mere speculation and lacked any concrete evidence, describing the attempt as a move to undermine the judicial process.

Judicial Integrity and Responsibility In a stern observation, Justice Sharma stated that stepping away from the case based on unfounded allegations would be a dereliction of duty. She emphasized that if judges began to withdraw due to pressure or baseless accusations, it would set a dangerous precedent, damaging the credibility of the entire legal institution. The judge noted that the path of recusal was an “easy exit” she refused to take to uphold the dignity of the court.

Impact of Personal Attacks on Judiciary The court pointed out the inconsistency in the petitioner’s stance, noting that no bias was alleged when previous rulings were in favor of AAP leaders. Justice Sharma remarked that personal attacks on a judge are an assault on the judiciary itself. The court’s decision reinforces that litigants, regardless of their political stature, cannot question judicial merit based on convenience or apprehension.

At a Glance

• Delhi HC rejects Arvind Kejriwal’s plea to remove Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from the liquor policy case.
• The court termed the allegations of bias as “imaginary” and “concocted” without any supporting evidence.
• Justice Sharma stated that recusal under pressure would mean abandoning her constitutional oath.
• The ruling highlights that judicial credibility cannot be compromised by political or personal attacks.