Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed the recusal pleas filed by Arvind Kejriwal and others in the excise policy case. The Court made it clear that such pleas cannot be accepted on the basis of mere suspicion, as doing so would weaken the judicial process and harm institutional integrity.

In a detailed and strongly worded order, Justice Sharma stated that the applications were based on “insinuations and aspersions” rather than solid evidence. She noted that the concerns raised by the applicants did not meet the legal threshold required for recusal. The Court cautioned that accepting such claims without proof would set a wrong precedent and encourage similar attempts in the future.

“A judge cannot recuse to satisfy a litigant's unfounded suspicion,” the Court said, adding that the courtroom cannot become a “theatre of perception.” The judge stressed that decisions must be based on facts and law, not on personal beliefs or narratives created by parties involved in a case.

The Court also addressed the broader implications of such pleas. It was observed that even a powerful political figure cannot be allowed to harm the credibility of the judiciary without presenting concrete material. Justice Sharma emphasised that the same standard of fairness applies when allegations are made against a judge. Judicial functioning, she said, cannot be influenced by claims that are not backed by evidence.

One of the key arguments raised by the applicants was the alleged conflict of interest due to the judge’s children being empanelled as Central Government counsel. Rejecting this contention, the Court held that such empanelment alone does not indicate bias. It stated that no direct connection between this fact and the present case was shown. Justice Sharma further clarified that while judges take an oath of office, their family members continue to have independent professional careers, and litigants cannot interfere in their choices.

The Court also dismissed the argument that prior orders of the High Court being set aside by the Supreme Court of India could justify recusal. It explained that higher courts review judicial decisions, not the individuals involved. The judge pointed out that in the examples cited, including bail matters, the Supreme Court had not made any negative observations about the High Court’s reasoning.

Addressing claims related to her participation in certain events, Justice Sharma clarified that these were professional engagements and not political in nature. She stated that many judges take part in such events, and mere attendance as a speaker or chief guest cannot be seen as proof of bias or prejudice.

The Court also noted contradictions in the arguments presented by the applicants. While they claimed that the judge’s integrity was not in question, they still sought her recusal on the grounds of perceived bias. Justice Sharma observed that such a stance effectively puts the judiciary itself on trial. “While an accused can prove innocence, he cannot attempt to portray a judge as tainted,” the Court remarked.

Justice Sharma highlighted that the plea had created a difficult situation. She explained that if the Court chose to recuse, it could appear as if the allegations were valid. If it did not recuse, the decision might still be questioned. The Court warned that allowing such tactics could open the door to misuse and create a perception that judicial outcomes can be influenced.

Emphasising the responsibility of the judiciary, the Court stated that it has recused or transferred cases in the past when there was a genuine conflict of interest, even without a request. However, it made it clear that judicial duties cannot be abandoned based on mere apprehensions or public criticism.

“The robe this Court wears is not so light,” Justice Sharma observed, adding that the Court would stand up not only for itself but also for the institution. She reflected on the responsibility of her position and said that her silence and fairness had been tested. However, she chose to decide the matter instead of taking what she called the easier path of stepping aside.

The judge also remarked that truth remains strong even if false claims are repeated, whether inside the courtroom or on social media. She stressed that courts must rely on facts and legal principles, not on public perception or repeated allegations.

In conclusion, the Court held that the recusal plea had no merit and dismissed it. It stated that accepting such applications would legitimise baseless allegations against judges and could lead to a situation where “justice being managed” rather than delivered.

The case is linked to the Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22 matter, in which the CBI has challenged the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others. With the recusal plea now rejected, the High Court will proceed to hear the case on its merits.