Delhi High Court Rejects Kejriwal’s Plea Seeking Recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in Liquor Policy Case

April 20, 2026 : The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing matters related to the excise policy case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the allegations of bias were unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence. The Court reiterated that judges are presumed to act impartially, and any party seeking recusal must present clear and reasonable grounds to rebut that presumption. In this instance, the applicants failed to meet that threshold.

The Court observed that the plea was rooted in suspicion and conjecture rather than demonstrable facts. It cautioned that entertaining such claims could undermine public confidence in the judiciary and set an unhealthy precedent.

Justice Sharma remarked that the petition effectively placed the institution of the judiciary under scrutiny. She stated that the order had been written independently, without being influenced by external factors, emphasizing that the judiciary’s strength lies in its commitment to adjudicate matters with integrity.

Addressing concerns over her participation in events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), the judge clarified that these engagements were professional and academic in nature. She noted that attending programmes on legal developments, women’s issues, or interactions with members of the bar could not be construed as evidence of ideological bias, especially since such participation is common among judges.

On the issue of her children being part of the Central government’s panel counsel, the Court stated that the petitioner had failed to establish any conflict of interest in the present case. It further observed that family members of judges cannot be restricted from pursuing legal careers, as doing so would infringe upon their fundamental rights. The Court also noted that none of her children had any involvement in the excise policy case.

Rejecting the argument that a litigant’s apprehension alone could justify recusal, the Court underscored that repeated allegations, whether in court or on social media, do not transform falsehoods into truth.

The Court also pointed out that no objections were raised regarding bias when earlier orders in related matters were favourable to the applicants. It added that statements made by political figures outside court proceedings cannot form the basis for seeking recusal, as the judiciary has no control over such remarks.

Finding that the threshold for establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias had not been met, the High Court dismissed the applications. It held that recusal without valid grounds would compromise the credibility of the judicial process and amount to a failure in discharging judicial duty.

The development comes in the backdrop of an appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging a trial court order that had discharged Kejriwal and others earlier this year in the excise policy case. The High Court had issued notice in the appeal and passed interim directions, following which Kejriwal, along with Manish Sisodia and Vijay Nair, sought the judge’s recusal.