Delhi High Court Rejects Kejriwal’s Recusal Plea, Says ‘Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Put On Trial'
The High Court dismissed Arvind Kejriwal’s recusal plea, holding that allegations of bias were unsubstantiated and reaffirming judicial independence.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejects Arvind Kejriwal’s recusal plea in the Delhi excise policy case
The Delhi High Court on Monday rejected former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the excise policy case.
Pronouncing the verdict, Justice Sharma made it clear that she would continue to hear the matter, firmly rejecting allegations of bias and asserting the independence of the judiciary.
“Judicial integrity cannot be put to trial by a litigant,” she said, adding, “A courtroom cannot be a theatre of perception.”
Opening her judgment on a reflective note, Justice Sharma remarked, “When I began to pen this judgment, the courtroom had fallen silent… I realised my silence as a judge was itself being put to test.” She noted that while recusal may have been the easier course, she chose to decide the issue as it concerned the “institution and its integrity.”
The Court observed that the plea had effectively placed the judiciary itself on trial. “In this case, I am not the judge; in fact, the litigant has put the judiciary and me on trial,” Justice Sharma said, adding that she had “chosen to resolve the controversy.”
Addressing allegations regarding her participation in events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, the Court held that mere attendance at professional events could not give rise to apprehensions of bias. “It is difficult to appreciate how mere participation as a speaker can foreclose the ability of a judge to decide a case,” she observed, noting that no political statements had been attributed to her.
On the contention that her children were empanelled as Central government counsel, the Court dismissed the argument as unfounded. Justice Sharma stated that a litigant cannot dictate the professional choices of a judge’s family. “Just like a politician’s family enters politics, how can one question a judge’s children?” she remarked, clarifying that her relatives had no connection with the excise policy case.
The Court warned that accepting such arguments would lead to an untenable situation where judges across the country would be disqualified from hearing cases involving the government.
Justice Sharma also underscored that allegations of bias must be supported by “tangible material” and not mere perceptions. “A lie, even if repeated a thousand times in court or on social media, does not become the truth,” she said, rejecting what she described as attempts to create a false impression of conflict of interest.
The judgment further highlighted the “catch-22” nature of the plea, noting that recusal in such circumstances would risk setting a dangerous precedent. “If a judge recuses on such grounds, it may create an impression that judges can be pressurised,” the Court cautioned.
Taking a firm stance, Justice Sharma observed that even powerful individuals cannot be allowed to undermine judicial institutions without evidence. “A politician, howsoever powerful, cannot be permitted to damage the institution without material,” she said.
Concluding the judgment, the Court held that the grounds raised by Kejriwal fell short of the legal threshold required for recusal. “A judge cannot recuse to satisfy unfounded suspicions or manufactured allegations,” Justice Sharma stated.
Rejecting all applications, she declared unequivocally: “I will not recuse. I will hear the case.”
Interestingly, today morning the Court had witnessed sharp exchanges during the hearing of a recusal plea filed by Kejriwal in the excise policy case, with Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ultimately taking his written submissions on record as an exception. Appearing via video conferencing, Kejriwal requested the Court to accept his rejoinder to the affidavit filed by the CBI in the recusal proceedings. He submitted that the Registry had declined to accept his rejoinder. Opposing the request, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had argued that once judgment is reserved, no further pleadings are ordinarily taken on record. He pointed out that Kejriwal had already been granted latitude earlier to file an additional affidavit without objection.
Recently, CBI had opposed pleas filed by the AAP chief and other accused seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Delhi excise policy case, arguing before the Court that the allegations are baseless and, if accepted, would have far-reaching consequences for the judiciary. In its written submissions and affidavit, the probe agency contended that Kejriwal’s claim of bias, based on the fact that Justice Sharma’s children are empanelled as counsel for the Central government, cannot be a ground for recusal.
Kejriwal, in an additional affidavit, had argued that the judge’s children being assigned work by the Solicitor General; who appears for the CBI, creates a “reasonable apprehension of bias”, warranting her recusal from the matter.
The controversy arises from the CBI’s challenge to a trial court order dated February 27, which discharged Kejriwal and several others in the excise policy case. Justice Sharma, while issuing notice on the CBI’s plea, had stayed certain directions against the investigating officer and made prima facie observations on the trial court’s findings.
Subsequently, Kejriwal and co-accused, including Manish Sisodia and others, moved applications seeking the judge’s recusal, alleging bias based on judicial observations, external associations, and now, familial links. Kejriwal also appeared in person before the court to argue his plea. Following the hearing, videos of the proceedings circulated widely on social media, prompting the High Court to direct their takedown for violating rules on recording court proceedings.
Case Title: CBI v. Arvind Kejriwal
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Judgment Date: April 20, 2026