New Delhi: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday rejected a plea by former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal seeking her recusal from hearing a case linked to the Delhi excise policy matter, stating that the allegations made lacked evidence and were based on insinuations.
The decision came as part of proceedings in the ongoing excise policy case, which has been at the centre of political and legal debate in recent months.
Court finds no merit in recusal request
Justice Sharma observed that the plea did not meet the legal threshold required for recusal. She noted that the arguments presented were based on “unfounded suspicion of bias” and “manufactured allegations”, rather than concrete proof.
In her remarks, the judge emphasised that judicial responsibility cannot be set aside merely due to apprehensions expressed by a litigant. She added that allowing such requests without substantive grounds could undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
The court further stated that allegations questioning a judge’s fairness must be supported by credible evidence, which was not present in this case.
Strong observations on judicial independence
Highlighting the importance of judicial independence, Justice Sharma said that a judge cannot withdraw from a case simply to address doubts raised without basis.
She also remarked that judicial functions cannot be surrendered based on public criticism or perceived pressure. The court underscored that maintaining institutional integrity is essential for the rule of law.
The judge added that even influential individuals, including political leaders, cannot make unsubstantiated allegations against members of the judiciary.
Background of the case
The plea for recusal was filed in connection with the ongoing investigation into the Delhi excise policy case, which involves allegations of irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the policy.
Kejriwal had sought the judge’s withdrawal from the case, citing concerns over impartiality. However, the court dismissed these concerns, stating that they were not backed by evidence.
Legal position on recusal
In Indian law, recusal refers to a judge stepping aside from a case due to a potential conflict of interest or perceived bias. Courts generally require clear and reasonable grounds for such requests to be considered.
Justice Sharma’s ruling reiterates that mere suspicion or perception is insufficient, and that recusal must be based on demonstrable facts to ensure fairness while preventing misuse of the provision.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision reinforces the principle that judicial proceedings must be guided by evidence and legal standards rather than conjecture. By rejecting the recusal plea, the court has underscored the importance of maintaining both judicial independence and accountability within the legal system.