Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to decide whether she should step away from the liquor policy case, following a direct challenge from AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal.
Kejriwal had raised several objections against the judge hearing the CBI's plea against his discharge in the liquor policy case.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the CBI and opposed the plea. He urged Justice Sharma to initiate contempt action against Kejriwal
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said "Justice Sharma should not succumb to pressure as her recusal on unfounded allegations would set a bad precedent".
Arvind Kejriwal Recusal Plea: Delhi High Court Judge Likely To Pass Order Today
Delhi High Court Judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma will pronounce her verdict at 2.30 pm on Monday on pleas by AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking her recusal in the liquor policy case.
Summary
In a courtroom drama that has shifted from the merits of a case to the impartiality of the bench itself, the Delhi High Court is set to deliver a pivotal ruling at 2:30 PM today. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma will decide whether she should step away from the high-profile liquor policy case, following a direct challenge from AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and his colleagues. It is a moment that tests the delicate balance between judicial authority and the apprehensions of those being judged.
For Arvind Kejriwal, the push for recusal isn't just a legal maneuver; it’s a plea for a clean slate. His legal team has pointed to a string of previous rulings by Justice Sharma—denials of bail and the upholding of arrests—as evidence of a "conclusive" mindset. To the petitioners, it feels as though the door has already been bolted shut. Beyond the rulings, the former Chief Minister has raised a more personal concern: a "conflict of interest" involving the judge’s family members, who serve as government lawyers. In Kejriwal's eyes, the proximity of the judge's family to the very government prosecuting him makes an impartial hearing feel like a distant hope.
On the other side of the aisle, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has framed the request as an affront to the dignity of the court. Defending the CBI’s position, Mehta didn't mince words, dismissing the AAP leadership's concerns as the apprehensions of an immature mind. For the prosecution, this isn't about bias but about institutional respect. Mehta warned that if a judge recuses themselves every time a defendant feels uneasy, it would hand a veto power to litigants, allowing them to effectively choose their own judges by leveled accusations.
This standoff follows a massive legal win for the AAP in February, when a trial court essentially gutted the CBI’s case, stating it couldn't survive judicial scrutiny. Now, as the High Court weighs the CBI's attempt to revive that case, the focus has narrowed to one question: Who gets to decide? As Justice Sharma prepares to take the bench this afternoon, her verdict will do more than just set the course for the liquor policy case; it will define the boundaries of judicial transparency in one of the country's most politically charged legal battles.
Advertisement
Published At: