Breaking | 'Politician Can't Be Allowed To Judge Judicial Competence' : Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Rejects Arvind Kejriwal's Recusal Plea

The Delhi High Court on Monday rejected the applications filed by Aam Aadmi Party supremo Arvind Kejriwal and other accused seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the liquor policy case. 

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that merely because her children are central government panel counsel, it cannot be presumed that she carries any bias against Kejriwal.

The judge added that a politician cannot be permitted to judge judicial competence.

"The competence of a judge is decided by the higher court, not the litigant...a politician cannot be permitted to cross the boundary and cannot judge judicial competence...A litigant may not always be successful and only higher court can determine whether judgment is contrary or one sided. A judgment of district court can be upheld by HC and same thing for HC which will be seen by SC. General unease of litigant that this court may not grant relief, that can't be a ground to alleged bias against the judge."

Justice Sharma added that a judge can't abandon judicial responsibility in face of allegations. "A judge can't recuse to satisfy a litigant's unfounded suspicion of bias and based on manufactured allegations...Personal attacks on judge are attacks on institution itself...it will not only be an attack on a judge that is me, but also on the institution. The threat would travel to higher courts but also to district courts...If this court by penning recusal judgment gives an impression that it can be intermediated by a litigant, a recusal would lead the public to believe that judges are aligned to a political party..."

Justice Sharma on empanelment of her children as govt counsel

Kejriwal has alleged bias on part of Justice Sharma on the ground that her children are Central government panel counsel.

On this, Justice Sharma said,

"Even if relatives are empaneled on govt panels, the litigant has to show relevance and impact on this case. No such nexus has been shown. Their empaneled or relationship has no connection with this dispute...the recusal file did not come with any evidence but contained aspersions, insinuations and doubts casted on her integrity and impartiality."

She added, "A litigant can't dictate how children of judge have to live their lives, in absence of any proof that office of judge was misused. If children of politicians can enter politics, how will it be fair to question when children or family of judge enter legal profession and struggle and prove themselves like others...Relatives of this court have no connection with this dispute. They have no proximity to the lis...if such allegation is accepted, then the court will not be able to hear any matter in which Union of India is a party...Such insinuation is not only unfounded but also overlooks judicial office and integrity attached to it."

The judge further said it is not Arvind Kejriwal's case that the Solicitor General, who appeared for the CBI in liquor policy case, allots cases only to her children and not other panel lawyers. "The court is being selectively targeted and Kejriwal is taking contrary stands in his affidavits..Personal apprehensions of applicants have not been able to pass test of reasonable bias. The recusal has to stem from law and not narrative," she said.

Justice Sharma on Social media campaign against her

During the hearing, Kejriwal had orally submitted that there was a social media discussion regarding the professional association of Justice Sharma's children with the Central Government. Kejriwal had submitted that as per established traditions, judges recused if their kin had associations with any of the parties appearing in the matter.

CBI had argued that a “selective, premeditated, and vitriolic online campaign” was designedly launched against Justice Sharma, by tweeting and re-tweeting the “misinformation” and making wild insinuations regarding the government panel work given to her children.

In this regard, Justice Sharma said, "This court having served as judge for nearly 34 years is adequately trained to pay any heed to whatever is said on social media. But such campaigns are brought in proceedings, judicial proceedings are adjudicated on basis on records and not what is said on social media. Many Spouses, siblings and children of judges are there in this profession. When my children were born when I was a judicial magistrate, it cannot be exploited by anyone."

She added that there is an actual conflict of interest, and there is another where you project it in such a way that everyone thinks there is a conflict of interest.

"In this case, something has been portrayed that does not exist. A litigant cannot be permitted to create a situation that lowers the judicial process...It cant be assumed from remote circumstances. It must rest on tangible materials with clear connection with lis. A lie even if repeated thousand times in court or social media doesnt become a truth. Truth doesn't lose its strength merely because falsehood is repeated."

Justice Sharma analyses SC decision on orders passed by her in relation to Liquor Policy case

Court cited examples of cases concerning AAP leaders including Kejriwal and Raghav Chadha, where ex-parte interim orders were passed in their favour. "No allegations of bias wase raised there. Perhaps maybe interim order was passed in their favour," Court said.

Justice Sharma noted Kejriwal had also argued that orders passed by her are overturned by the Supreme Court and thus, she should not hear his case. In this regard, Justice Sharma referred to the Sanjay Singh case who was granted bail by the Supreme Court on a concession made by ED. Justice Sharma said no comments were made by the SC on her order denying bail to Singh.

Similarly, no findings or observations were made by the Supreme Court on the orders passed by her in Manish Sisodia's case, Justice Sharma said.

So far as Arvind Kejriwal's case is concerned, the question regarding necessity of his arrest was referred by the Supreme Court to a larger bench and interim bail was granted. Justice Sharma's order was not set aside by the SC.

Attending Adhivakta Parishad event no ground to insinuate political bias

Kejriwal had pleaded that Justice Sharma attending events of Adhiwakta Parishad, which he claimed to be a political organization, was a ground for recusal.

Justice Shamra today observed that the events were not political. "Speakers were invited to speak on legal issues. In past many judges of this country have been participating in them. Merely because I was invited to deliver lecture, cannot be basis to insinuate political bias. How can anyone say that just because I attended an event of some lawyers' organization, my mind must have been closed that I will not decide the cases fairly. Applicant (Kejriwal) has selectively placed on record events of Adhivakta Parishad. This court routinely attend functions of NLUs, colleges, hospitals, lawyers forums etc."

She added, "Judges are invited as judges of court. In interaction, there is no space for any political ideology. The relationship between bar and bench is not confined only to courtrooms. It is not uncommon for bar associations to organize functions. No litigant can be allowed to reckon relationship between bar and bench."

Justice Sharma further said that lawyers are sometimes affiliated with a political party but when lawyers appear before court, cases are adjudicated on merits and not judging them from prism of ideology. "Floodgates of court cannot be opened by allowing a litigant to plant seeds of distrust solely on this basis."

Court on Kejriwal's allegation on statements made by Union Minister Amit Shah

Kejriwal had also cited Union Minister Amit Shah statement, that he won't get any relief from HC and he will have to go to superior courts, as a ground for recusal.

On this, Justice Sharma said, "Any politician or Union Minister may express opinion which may be adverse to litigant. There is no control on what politician or Mr. Kejriwal who is politician himself may state in public or in politics. It is matter of common knowledge that such statements are made by political parties in opposition."

She added, "Impartiality is a presumption in favour of a judge. It is not a legal requirement but an ethical one. When person seeks recusal, that presumption has to be rebutted by litigant. Mere apprehension or personal perception of litigant is not enough."

On February 27, the trial court discharged all the 23 accused persons in the case, including political leaders Kejriwal, Sisodia and K Kavitha. The trial court had also severely criticised the CBI's investigation in the case.

Thereafter, CBI filed appeal before the High Court challenging the discharge. 

Kejriwal then filed application seeking Justice Sharma's recusal and made submissions in person. Other accused who moved similar applications were Manish Sisodia, Vinay Nair, Durgesh Pathak, Chanpreet Singh Rayat, Arun Ramchandra Pillai, and Rajesh Joshi. 

After detailed arguments on April 13, Justice Sharma had reserved orders on the applications. Later, Kejriwal filed the fresh affidavit, stating that he got records showing the empanelment of Justice Sharma's children as Central Government Counsel. While her son is a Group A panel counsel for the Supreme Court, her daughter is a Group C Panel Counsel.

Responding to the additional affidavit, CBI filed its response saying that neither of Justice Sharma's children have ever dealt with, assisted anyone or been involved in any capacity— in matters pertaining to the liquor policy case.

Thereafter, Kejriwal filed rejoinder affidavit saying that CBI itself admits a “live, continuing and active professional relationship” between the Central Government's litigation establishment and the immediate family members of Justice Sharma.

He said that even on CBI's own version, the children of Justice are not passive names on a panel but active recipients of Government litigation work.

Title: CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors

Case No.: CRL.REV.P.-134/2026