Delhi Excise Policy Case: Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma Will Not Recuse Herself from the Case; What She Said While Dismissing Kejriwal's Plea?
While dismissing Arvind Kejriwal's petition seeking her recusal from hearing the case related to the alleged Delhi Excise Policy scam, Delhi High Court Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma clarified that if she were to recuse herself from this matter, it could foster a public perception that the judge is influenced by a specific political party or ideology. She stated that the Court cannot allow such a perception to take root; therefore, the hearing of the case would continue.
According to Sharma, this demand was premised on the apprehension of potential bias, rather than on the assertion that the judge is, in fact, biased. Justice Sharma remarked that such arguments amount, in essence, to a challenge against the institution of the judiciary itself.
Justice Sharma clarified that, in the matter concerning Arvind Kejriwal's arrest, only the question regarding the necessity of the arrest was referred to a larger bench—along with the grant of interim bail—but the orders issued by her Court were not set aside.
She further observed that even if a judge's order is overturned by a higher court, it does not confer upon any litigant the right to demand the judge's recusal from a case by casting doubts upon their impartiality.
Court exercises no control over statements made by political leaders
Furthermore, addressing the demand for recusal based on a statement made by Amit Shah, Justice Sharma stated that this ground was entirely speculative. She clarified that the Court exercises no control over statements made by political leaders on public platforms, nor does the judiciary possess the authority to regulate political rhetoric.
Not swayed by the allegations
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma stated that she deemed it imperative to adjudicate this application because it transcended the scope of a mere individual case, raising questions pertinent to the judicial institution as a whole. She affirmed that, consistent with her 34 years of judicial experience, she would once again render an impartial verdict, unswayed by the allegations leveled against her.
She further noted that various issues emerged during the course of the arguments, which served to further complicate the proceedings. Justice Sharma also pointed out that while the petitioner did not directly question her integrity, he nonetheless sought the transfer of the case.