New Delhi [India], April 20 (ANI): In a strongly worded judgment reaffirming judicial independence, the Delhi High Court dismissed AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal's plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case, holding that the allegations were based on conjecture and failed to meet the legal standard of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Leading with sharp observations, the Court emphasised that 'the courtroom cannot become a theatre of perception' and cautioned that even a powerful political figure cannot be permitted to cast aspersions on a sitting judge without material evidence. It held that the same standard of fairness applies when allegations are made against the judiciary and warned that entertaining such pleas would erode institutional credibility.

Justice Sharma noted that the applicants' case was built on 'insinuations and aspersions' rather than proof, and that accepting such arguments would set a dangerous precedent. The Court observed that a judge cannot be asked to recuse merely because a litigant apprehends an unfavourable outcome, stating that 'justice cannot be managed through perception.'

Addressing the argument of perceived bias, the Court pointed out the contradiction in the applicant's stand--while asserting that the judge's integrity was not in doubt, recusal was still sought based on apprehension. Such a position, the Court said, effectively places the judiciary itself on trial.

On the issue of alleged conflict of interest due to her children being empanelled as Central Government counsel, Justice Sharma held that no nexus with the present case had been established. The Court clarified that while a judge takes an oath of office, their family members are not barred from pursuing their professional careers, and litigants cannot dictate their choices.

The Court also rejected reliance on political statements and participation in public or professional events, observing that such grounds cannot form the basis of alleging bias. It noted that no political statement by the judge had been pointed out and that participation in legal or academic events does not compromise judicial impartiality.

Responding to arguments that some of its earlier orders had been set aside, the Court clarified that judicial competence is assessed by higher courts, not by litigants. It further noted that in the examples cited, the Supreme Court had not made adverse observations on the High Court's findings.

Justice Sharma also highlighted that the plea had created a 'catch-22' situation--if the Court recused, it would validate the allegations; if it did not, the outcome would still be questioned. Such tactics, the Court said, cannot be allowed as they risk undermining both the individual judge and the institution at large.

Emphasising the weight of judicial responsibility, the Court observed that 'the robe this Court wears is not so light' and asserted that it would stand up not only for itself but also for the institution. It reiterated that judicial functions cannot be surrendered on the basis of unfounded suspicions or public narratives.

Concluding that the plea lacked merit, the Court dismissed the recusal application, holding that the apprehensions raised did not pass the legal threshold and that allowing such claims would open the floodgates to attempts at influencing judicial proceedings.

The case arises from the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 matter, where the CBI has challenged the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others. With the recusal plea rejected, the High Court is set to proceed with the case on the merits. (ANI)