The Delhi High Court dismissed the application filed by Arvind Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma from the Delhi excise policy case, ruling that the plea failed to meet the legal standard of "reasonable apprehension" of bias.

In a detailed order, Justice Sharma observed that the applicant's grievances regarding the "extraordinary speed" of proceedings and her previous judicial findings were legally unsubstantiated, noting that the same judicial practices were never questioned when orders were passed in the party's favor.

Characterizing the application as a "Catch-22" manoeuvre designed to create a "win-win" narrative for the litigant, the Court maintained that judicial integrity cannot be compromised by strategic character assassination or external political commentary, thereby affirming its resolve to adjudicate the CBI's challenge against the discharge of the accused.

Today, in the morning at 10:30, Arvind Kejriwal requested the Court to take his rejoinder on record even when the matter was listed for the pronouncement of the judgment/order in the application seeking recusal. The Court allowed it to be taken on record as written submissions. 

On the last date of the hearing, appearing in person, Kejriwal personally argued his application seeking the recusal of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma from hearing the CBI's challenge against his discharge in the Delhi Excise Policy case. Mehta characterized the plea as a "mala fide" attempt by Arvind Kejriwal and other respondents to choose their own Bench through strategic character assassination.

The Bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma ordered, "Recusal would not be prudence but abdication of duty. It would be an act of surrender...Therefore, the Applications seeking recusal are rejected...mai yahi kehna chahti hu ki mai ye application reject krti hu kyuki ki meri oath constitution...justice pressure me jhukne se nhi hota...justice political ideology se nahi hota...justice kisi ki bhi wajah se nhi jhukhta hai...mai ye hold krti hu ki I WILL NOT RECUSE, mai ye case ki sunvayi se nahi hatungi..."

Justice Sharma remarked, "When I began to pen this judgment, the courtroom had fallen silent. What remained was the quiet weight of being a judge who had taken the oath of the Constitution of India, that is Bharat. I realized my silence as a judge was itself put to the test, and the question now was about the fairness of the judge and the institution itself."

She added, "The issue was clear as to whether I should recuse. My impartiality and dignity had been challenged. The easier path would have been to recuse without hearing the application. I decided to adjudicate the application because it was a question of the institution. I decided to decide it without being affected by the accusations, as I have done in the 34 years of my judicial career. What has made the task difficult is that contrary stands have been taken during the arguments. They have said that they do not doubt the integrity of the judge, but they want the case transferred not because I have a bias, but because they have an apprehension of bias."

"The litigant has put the institution of the judiciary on trial...I chose the path to resolve the controversy. The strength of the judiciary lies in its strong resolve to decide the accusations. I have written the order without being affected by anything", Justice Sharma said. 

Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma highlighted the inconsistency in the petitioners' claims of bias, noting that the same judicial practices were never questioned when orders were passed in their favor.

Justice Sharma pointed out that in several previous cases involving Arvind Kejriwal, Raghav Chadha, and other party leaders, she had passed ex parte interim orders in their favor. At that time, no allegations regarding her "ideological inclinations" or judicial bias were raised by the party.

She observed that a judicial practice accepted without objection when it benefits a litigant cannot suddenly be termed "biased" when applied in favor of the opposing side. She noted that many such interim orders for AAP leaders are still being continued by her Bench without complaint.

Addressing the allegation that her orders are routinely set aside by the Supreme Court, she clarified that in the case of Sanjay Singh, bail was granted based on a concession made by the ED, not because of any negative remarks on her judgment. She further stated that in Manish Sisodia’s case, the Supreme Court did not make any adverse findings or observations regarding the specific orders passed by the High Court, debunking the argument that her previous views were legally discredited by the apex court.

She said (in Hindi), "Agar kisi Judge ka order koi superior court set aside kar deta hai toh uss litigant ko ye right nhi milta ki wo yaha khada ho ke ye bole ki ye Judge case sunne layak nhi hai."

Regarding Arvind Kejriwal's submission concerning Home Minister Amit Shah's public statement, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma dismissed the ground as being based "purely on imagination." She observed that the Court has no control over what politicians choose to state in the public domain, nor can it regulate such statements. She emphasized that a judge's recusal cannot be prompted by external political commentary, as it does not reflect the Court's own independent judicial process.

Addressing the specific ground regarding her participation in Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad events, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma clarified that these were not political engagements, but professional legal programs.

She noted that the functions were focused on legal education and professional development, such as programs on the new criminal laws, Women’s Day celebrations, and interactions with younger members of the Bar.

"Ye koi kesa keh skta hai ki agar mene ek adhivakta parishad ka event attend kra toh mai uss case ko nahi sun skti", she added. 

"Whatever the organization, whosoever its founder, judges are invited as judges of the court to interact with students or members of the bar. The engagement is confined to law. The relationship between the Bar and the Bench is not confined to courtrooms. No litigant can sever or weaken the relationship between the Bar and the Bench", she said.

Addressing the allegations of a conflict of interest regarding her children serving as government panel counsels, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed that the mere professional standing of a judge’s relatives does not automatically disqualify the judge from hearing a case.

The Court held that if a judge’s relatives are on a government panel, the burden lies on the litigant to demonstrate a direct impact on the specific case or the judge's decision-making process.

Justice Sharma emphasized that the applicant failed to show any such nexus or evidence that their professional roles influenced the proceedings. She maintained that without a proven connection or specific conflict related to the matter at hand, such professional affiliations cannot serve as a valid ground for recusal. 

"Agar koi judge ke bache, vakil bnana chahe, toh kya kisi ke family members ko ye bola jaa skta hai ki aap nhi bn skte...unka fundamental right kha hai fir?...if a wife of a politician can be a politician...if the children of a politician can become politicians, how can it be said that the children of a judge can't enter the profession of law?... Accepting such an argument would take away the fundamental right of the family of the Judge...", the Court said.

"As an officer of this Court, I am conscious of the fact that a lie, even if repeated a 1000 times in court or on social media, does not become truth. It remains false. Truth doesn't lose its force merely because a lie is repeated several times...Truth, even if softly spoken, is always stronger", the Court said.

Justice Sharma remarked, "This Court has already passed every test that the Constitution requires...My judicial career spans to 34 years...However, can it be that the Judges need to pass every test put by every litigant?...They will have to prequalify a test put forward by the litigant. The judges in that case would have to satisfy the manufactured test that they have not attended the function of an organisation or that their family members are in the legal profession..."

Describing the dilemma posed by the application as a "Catch-22 situation," Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed that the applicant had effectively engineered a "win-win" scenario for his own narrative.

The Court explained that if a recusal were granted, it might appear as though the judiciary succumbed to pressure. Conversely, if the relief is not granted, the applicant could claim he had already "predicted" the outcome due to his stated apprehensions.

"I know I will be criticised as a judge. Chahe wo social media mein ho ya applications mein. Mujhe pata hai ki mujhe kitna aur kya karna hai..Agar main bina sune recuse kar leti to main apni duty surrender kar deti", Justice Sharma.

"As curtains are drawn, this Court must add that the application seeking recusal did not arrive with evidence; it arrived on my table with aspersions, insinuations and doubts cast on my integrity, fairness, and impartiality...", the Court added.

Kejriwal contended that the Court’s earlier judgments—which upheld his arrest and used strong language regarding the alleged scam—have effectively "declared him corrupt" before the trial could conclude, mirroring the findings he claims led to the Satyendar Jain case transfer.

Highlighting ten specific grounds, including the Court's previous attendance at Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad events and the "extraordinary speed" of the current proceedings, Kejriwal submitted that while he respects the Court’s integrity, the "reasonable apprehension" of bias in a litigant's mind is a sufficient legal standard for recusal to ensure a fair hearing.

Kejriwal also filed an additional affidavit before the Delhi High Court seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. He said that both the son and daughter of Justice Sharma were empanelled as Central Government Counsel. It was further alleged that they were allotted legal work by the Solicitor General of India, who appeared for the CBI in the very same matter before Justice Sharma. He contended that such professional links between the Judge’s immediate family and the prosecuting agency’s lead counsel necessitated her recusal to ensure the impartiality of the proceedings.

On April 16, the Delhi High Court agreed to take the said affidavit on record. Kejriwal appeared in person via video conferencing to request the formal filing of the document. The Court directed the Registry to accept the affidavit through electronic mode. However, the Bench clarified that the matter was already reserved for orders and was not being reopened for further arguments on merits.

CBI vehemently opposed the affidavit and filed a formal response. It was submitted that neither of the Judge's children ever dealt with, assisted in, or held any involvement in the liquor policy case in any capacity. The CBI further clarified that Mr Ishaan Sharma was empanelled by the Union of India in 2022, contrary to Kejriwal's claim that his appointment occurred recently in 2025.

Kejriwal contended that the Court’s earlier judgments—which upheld his arrest and used strong language regarding the alleged scam—have effectively "declared him corrupt" before the trial could conclude, mirroring the findings he claims led to the Satyendar Jain case transfer.

Background

Previously, the High Court issued notice to the CBI regarding an application filed by Arvind Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from the Delhi excise policy case. Appearing in person, the Aam Aadmi Party's Leader informed the court that he would argue the recusal application himself, asserting that he has not authorized any legal counsel for this specific plea.

On March 9, the High Court had issued notice to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, K Kavitha, and 20 others on a petition filed by the CBI challenging their discharge in the Delhi excise policy case. The Court also stayed the operation of the trial court's "scathing remarks" and the direction for a departmental inquiry against the CBI’s investigating officers, terming such observations "uncalled for" at this stage.

Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts discharged the accused after finding that the CBI failed to establish a prima facie case. The judge stated that the voluminous chargesheet contained numerous gaps and lacked support from witness statements or documents.

Regarding Arvind Kejriwal, the court ruled he was implicated without any cogent material, while it found no evidence to charge Manish Sisodia. The trial court’s order included a sharp critique of the CBI's investigation. The judge noted "misleading averments" in the chargesheet and observed that the evidence presented did not match the claims made by the agency. Consequently, the court ordered a departmental inquiry against the CBI’s Investigating Officer to address these lapses.

In its revision petition, the CBI argues that the trial court’s decision is legally flawed. The agency contends that the judge conducted a "mini-trial" by performing an in-depth evaluation of evidence that is typically reserved for a full trial, rather than the charge-framing stage. The CBI is seeking to overturn the discharge and stay the order for an inquiry against its officer.

Cause Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kuldeep Singh and Ors. [CRL.REV.P.: 134/2026]

Tags: