NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court’s Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday refused to recuse herself from hearing the matter involving former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal in the liquor policy case, observing that “impartiality is a presumption in favour of a judge” and that it’s not a “legal requirement but an ethical one”.Justice Sharma said “a politician cannot be permitted to cross the boundary and cannot judge judicial competence”.“Floodgates of court cannot be opened by allowing a litigant to plant seeds of distrust solely on this basis,” she was quoted as saying by Live Law.She said that when person seeks recusal, that presumption has to be rebutted by litigant, further noting that “mere apprehension or personal perception of litigant is not enough”.Kejriwal had appeared in person before the court seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing a CBI petition challenging his discharge in the liquor policy case.In the application, Kejriwal claimed that there was a grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension that the hearing in the matter before her would not be impartial and neutral.His plea stated that she has heard multiple cases arising from the CBI FIR, including Kejriwal’s petition against his arrest, and never given relief to any of the accused.
On her children in Centre’s panel
Addressing the allegations of her children being central government panel counsels, the judge said: “Sirf Kejriwal ji ne ye allegation lagaya hain” (Only Kerjriwal ji has levelled his allegation), adding that that if such charge is expected, then the “court will not be able tk hear any matter in which UoI is a party”. She further said “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” and noted that “such insinuation is not only unfounded but also overlooks judicial office and integrity attached to it”.“There is such a thing as an actual conflict of interest, and then there’s making it look like one to everyone else. In this case, they’ve portrayed a conflict where none actually exists. A litigant cant be permitted to create situation that lowers judicial process,” she said.
On attending the RSS-affiliated event
Justice Sharma said that her attending Adhivakta Parishad events was not political as 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,” she said.“Ye koi kaise keh sakta hain just because mene kisi lawyers ke organizaion ka event attend kia toh mera mind close hogaya hoga ki mai cases ko fairly decide nahi karungi” (“How can anyone suggest that simply because I attended an event hosted by a lawyers’ organization, my mind has become closed or that I would no longer decide cases fairly)” she observed.She further said: “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”.
On Kejriwal’s charges of fairness
On the argument that orders passed by her against Kejriwal were ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court, she said: “Bail of Sanjay Singh, was rejected by this court who is not even an accused. This example was cited by litigant himself. He was granted by SC on ED’s concession and SC had recorded specifically, no comments were made on bail. When Kejriwal was granted interim bail by SC, the issue was referred to larger bench and the HC order was not set aside”. “Judge’s competence is decided by the higher court, not the litigant,” Justice Sharma said.She added that allegations levelled and associations referred to were not relevant to the issue and that attempt was made “to attach media driven narrative” to the proceedings. “This court has decided the matter uninfluenced by any pressure,” she said.“If grounds raised were to be accepted for recusal, qualification of judicial office would have to be redrawn. In this case file seeking recusal did not arrive with evidence but with aspersions and doubts casted on my fairness and impartiality,” she said before dismissing the recusal plea.Besides Kejriwal, applications for her recusal were filed by AAP colleagues Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak. Other respondents, including Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai, also filed similar applications.Opposing the plea, CBI had said that the Kejriwal’s petition was “frivolous, vexatious and baseless” and a bid to undermine the dignity of the court.CBI further said that different judges of the high court as well as Supreme Court have also rendered adverse findings in the liquor policy case, and if Kejriwal’s contention was to be accepted, all these judges would have to recuse.
