Delhi High Court Refuses To Recuse In Kejriwal Liquor Policy Case

Justice Sharma, in her detailed order, stressed that a judge “cannot abdicate judicial responsibility in the face of allegations,” adding that personal attacks on a judge amount to “attacks on the institution itself.”

Curated by: Jinit Parmar

Updated on: 20 April 2026 9:33 pm

Published at: 20 April 2026 9:33 pm

Referring to the recusal request, she noted that the file “did not arrive with evidence but it arrived on my table with aspersions, insinuations and doubts cast on my integrity.” | Photo: PTI/Karma Bhutia

Summary of this article

Delhi High Court judge Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected Arvind Kejriwal’s recusal plea, ruling that mere apprehension of not getting relief is not a valid ground for a judge to step down.
The judge stated that recusal must “stem from law, not from narrative,” and that accepting the plea would amount to “surrender” and set a disturbing precedent.
She held that personal attacks on a judge are attacks on the institution itself, and judicial integrity cannot be put to trial by a litigant without material evidence.

Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday dismissed recusal pleas filed by AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal and others in the liquor policy case, ruling that mere apprehension of not getting relief from a court cannot be a ground for a judge to step down from a case.

“If this court was to recuse, it would be an act of surrender and a signal that the institution — including the judge and the court — can be bent, shaken and changed,” Justice Sharma observed while rejecting the applications.

The judge further stated, “Personal apprehensions have not been able to pass the threshold of the ‘apprehension of bias’. Recusal has to stem from law, and not from narrative; and this is a defining moment for the court.”

Justice Sharma, in her detailed order, stressed that a judge “cannot abdicate judicial responsibility in the face of allegations,” adding that personal attacks on a judge amount to “attacks on the institution itself.”

Referring to the recusal request, she noted that the file “did not arrive with evidence but it arrived on my table with aspersions, insinuations and doubts cast on my integrity.”

She underscored that judges are bound by the discipline of their office. “If they bow down to such vilification, it would not only be an attack on the individual judge but on the institution. Today it is this court; tomorrow it will be another court,” she warned.

The High Court judge also highlighted the broader implications of recusal on public perception, saying it would lead people to believe that a judge is inclined towards a particular party or ideology.

“Judicial integrity cannot be put to trial by a litigant. A litigant cannot judge a judge without any material. Urging this court to withdraw solely on the basis of perceived bias — if I were to accept this — it would set a disturbing precedent,” she added.

Kejriwal had expressed an “apprehension of bias” while seeking the judge’s recusal from the case. However, the court firmly rejected the plea, ruling that recusal must arise from legal grounds, not from narratives or personal fears.