Delhi High Court dismissed Arvind Kejriwal’s plea to recuse Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from the excise policy case, deeming it based on conjecture.
NEW DELHI: A political flashpoint erupted on Tuesday after Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the Delhi excise policy case was dismissed by the Delhi High Court a day earlier, prompting a sharp attack from BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj.Reacting to the court’s decision, Swaraj accused the AAP chief of attempting to pressure the judiciary. “Arvind Kejriwal is a bully. You tried to pressurise a female member of the judiciary of this country,” she said, adding that the court’s refusal to transfer the case exposed what she described as AAP’s “politics of creating pressure on the judiciary”. She further alleged that the party functioned like a “drama company” with Kejriwal as its “director”.
She added, ” “Arvind Kejriwal seems to have forgotten that the judicial system of this country does not function according to his convenience. It functions under the law and the Constitution of India. What did Kejriwal do? Immediately after the order on 9th March, he filed an application on 11th March before the chief justice of the Delhi high court, requesting that the case be transferred away from Justice Swarana Kanta.
Why? Because he did not like the order passed on 9th March.”A day earlier, Justice Sharma rejected the recusal plea filed by Kejriwal and other leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party, observing that the claims were “based on conjectures and insinuations”. She underlined that no material had been presented to indicate any ideological bias on her part.“Floodgates cannot be opened to sow seeds of mistrust,” the court said, cautioning that allowing such pleas without substantive grounds could erode public confidence in the judiciary.
The judge noted that recusal in such circumstances might wrongly suggest that judges are aligned with particular political ideologies.Addressing allegations raised in the plea, Justice Sharma clarified that her participation in events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad did not constitute political engagement. She said these were professional or academic programmes, including discussions on new criminal laws and interactions with members of the bar, and could not be used to infer bias.On the issue of alleged conflict of interest involving her family members being part of the government panel counsel, the court held that no direct nexus had been established. “The litigant has to show the impact of that on the present case or the decision-making power of this court. No such nexus has been shown,” she said.In a strongly worded observation, the judge remarked that the plea effectively placed the judiciary itself “on trial”, adding that the order had been written without being influenced by any external factors.In a related development, Justice Sharma recused herself from hearing a separate bail plea filed by former AAP MLA Naresh Balyan in a case registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. The matter will now be heard by another bench on April 23.(With agency inputs)
