CHANNEL009 Connects India
Related Articles
COURT CRUSHES KEJRIWAL’S ‘TACTICAL’ RECUSAL PLEA: JUDGE SLAMS ATTEMPT TO ‘JUDGE THE JUDGE’
NEW DELHI – In a significant victory for judicial integrity over political maneuvering, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a “baseless” recusal plea filed by AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal. While the court allowed Kejriwal an “extraordinary” opportunity to file additional responses to ensure he didn’t feel “unheard,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ultimately delivered a scathing rebuke, ruling that a politician cannot be permitted to “judge judicial competence.”
Extraordinary Latitude for the ‘Aam Aadmi’
On Monday, the court witnessed a rare procedural exception. Despite having already reserved its verdict, Justice Sharma allowed Kejriwal to place a fresh rejoinder on record as “written submissions.”[1][2] The judge remarked that she was “going out of her way” to grant this leeway so that Kejriwal could not later claim a miscarriage of justice or that his side was suppressed.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, took strong exception to this special treatment.[3] Mehta argued that “no other aam aadmi would have received such a benefit,” noting that Kejriwal was attempting to alter settled court procedures to suit his personal legal strategy.[4]
‘Perception is Not Proof’
Kejriwal’s plea for recusal was built on what the court termed “aspersions and doubts” rather than evidence.[5][6] The AAP leader had alleged a “conflict of interest” because the judge’s children are empanelled as Central Government Counsel.[3][7] He also cited past adverse rulings as “proof” of bias—a claim the court dismissed as a dangerous attempt at “forum shopping.”
In her detailed judgment, Justice Sharma held that:
-
Judicial Independence is Non-Negotiable: A judge cannot be forced to step aside simply because a litigant fears an unfavorable outcome.[5][6][8][9]
-
Attack on the Institution: Seeking recusal based on the professional lives of a judge’s family members was described as an attempt to “place the judge and the institution in the dock.”
-
No Political Veto: The court clarified that “judicial function cannot be surrendered to the mere perception of a litigant.”[5][6][9][10]
The ‘Win-Win’ Narrative Exposed
The court exposed what it described as a “Catch-22” strategy employed by the AAP legal team.[10] Justice Sharma noted that Kejriwal had created a narrative where any unfavorable ruling would be labeled “biased,” while a favorable one would be seen as the result of his “pressure tactics.”[6]
“Recusing in these circumstances would not be prudence but surrender,” Justice Sharma stated, affirming that the “floodgates of the court” cannot be opened to those seeking to “plant seeds of distrust” in the judiciary.[5][6]
CBI’s Stand Vindicated
The CBI had vehemently opposed the plea, labeling it “frivolous, vexatious, and a bid to undermine the dignity of the court.”[5] The agency argued that if Kejriwal’s logic were accepted, nearly every judge in the country could be disqualified from hearing cases involving high-profile political figures.[3]
The dismissal clears the path for the High Court to continue hearing the CBI’s challenge against Kejriwal’s discharge in the high-stakes Delhi excise policy case. For now, the court’s message is clear: the law is not a tool for political theater, and the bench will not be intimidated by “strategic character assassination.”
The Delhi High Court Monday permitted AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal to file his written submissions to the Central Bureau of Investigation’s assertion in relation to the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the matter pertaining to the probe agency’s alleged liquor policy scam.
Justice Sharma orally remarked that it is “going out of its way” and making an exception for AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal “so that he doesn’t feel tomorrow that he has not been heard.”
Justice Sharma was due to pronounce the verdict on whether the court will recuse itself from hearing the CBI’s plea, challenging the discharge of 23 accused in the excise case by a trial court in February, at 2.30 pm on Monday, as notified earlier in the morning.
However, with the fresh filing by Kejriwal, the court has now postponed the verdict pronouncement to 4.30 pm
