In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from the ongoing liquor policy case. Delivering a stern verdict, Justice Sharma asserted that stepping down under the weight of such allegations would compromise the independence of the judiciary.
The petition, filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convenor, alleged that Justice Sharma’s continued involvement in the case presented a conflict of interest. Kejriwal’s legal team raised two primary concerns. An affidavit filed on April 15 claimed that Justice Sharma’s two children work with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represents the Central Government in this matter. Kejriwal argued that the judge had attended events organized by RSS-affiliated bodies, specifically the All India Bar Council, on four separate occasions.
Kejriwal further noted that his skepticism grew after a March 9 hearing, where the High Court stayed a trial court order in just five minutes—an order that had been delivered after a full day of arguments.
In a detailed response, Justice Sharma dismantled the allegations, framing the petition as an attack on the entire judicial institution. Addressing the claims regarding her children, Justice Sharma maintained that family members of judges do not forfeit their fundamental rights to a profession.
“Just because a judge takes the oath of office doesn’t mean that his or her family must also vow not to enter the profession,” she said. She questioned the double standard, noting that if children of politicians can follow their parents into politics, the same professional freedom should apply to the families of judges.
The judge clarified that the events in question were Bar Council functions—legal gatherings intended to discuss new criminal laws, Women’s Day, and mentorship for young lawyers. She emphasized that participating in professional legal forums cannot be construed as political or ideological bias.
Justice Sharma admitted that recusing herself would have been the easiest path to avoid personal scrutiny. However, she chose to stay to protect the reputation of the bench. “This is a test of my silence as a judge. The parties have put me and this institution on trial. Once a judge’s reputation is lost, it is very difficult to regain,” she remarked.
The friction between Kejriwal and Justice Sharma intensified following the judge’s decision to stay a trial court order from February 27. The trial court had acquitted Kejriwal and 22 others, while also recommending departmental action against the CBI’s investigating officer.
Justice Sharma, hearing the CBI’s challenge, stayed that recommendation and noted that the trial court’s observations appeared “prima facie erroneous.” This prompted Kejriwal, along with Manish Sisodia and other AAP leaders, to move for her removal.
Key Takeaways of the Case
- The Origin: The 2021-22 Delhi Excise Policy was scrapped following allegations of corruption and favoritism toward private players.
- The Arrests: Arvind Kejriwal was detained for 156 days during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections before being granted bail by the Supreme Court. Manish Sisodia spent 530 days in custody.
- The Ruling: By refusing to recuse herself, Justice Sharma has signalled that “judge-shopping” or tactical pressure will not be entertained in the Delhi High Court.
The case will continue to be heard by Justice Sharma, maintaining the status quo of the judicial proceedings despite the high-profile objections from the defence.
