'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..."The judge added that the "narrative" constructed in the recusal applications was found to be based on "conjectures". Moreover, the recusal file did not come with any evidence but contained "aspersions, insinuations and doubts" casted on her integrity and impartiality."If I were to accept these applications it would set a troubling precedent. It becomes my bounden duty to answer it fearlessly. Unfortunately today it is not dispute between two litigants that i have to decide but between a litigant and myself, a judge. The arguments before this court have fallen short of proof required in law of recusal. A judge cant recuse to satisfy a litigant's unfounded suspicion of bias and based on manufactured allegations...This court will stand up for itself and this institution though it may appear difficult. The robe this court wears is not so light. If recusal on such grounds is accepted it would risk the adjudicatory process that is shaped. It would then be “justice managed,” she said.The main matter has now been listed on April 29 and 30, for CBI's submissions. The Court will hear the Respondents thereafter.Justice Sharma on empanelment of her children as govt counselKejriwal 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 herDuring 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...

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

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags