“If a judge’s order is set aside by a superior court, it does not give a litigant the right to claim that the judge is unfit".
“Justice Doesn’t Bow to Pressure”
Rejecting the allegations of bias, the court underscored that an adverse order cannot be grounds for questioning a judge’s impartiality.
“If a judge’s order is set aside by a superior court, it does not give a litigant the right to claim that the judge is unfit to hear the case,” Justice Sharma observed, firmly refusing to withdraw from the proceedings.
Nirendra Dev
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismisses bias allegations in excise policy case, defends judicial independence and family rights
In a strongly worded order, the Delhi High Court on Monday rejected pleas by Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing matters related to the excise policy case.
Delivering a detailed verdict, Justice Sharma described the situation as a “Catch-22” for herself but a “win-win” for the litigant, asserting that recusal in such circumstances would amount to “abdication of duty” rather than prudence.
She added, “Recusal would not be prudence, but abdication of duty. It would be an act of surrender,” emphasising that courts cannot function under perceived or manufactured pressure.
‘Catch-22’ for Court, ‘Win-Win’ for Litigant
The judge pointed to the paradox inherent in the plea, noting that the outcome would be interpreted politically regardless of the verdict.
“If he does not get relief, he will say he had predicted the outcome. If he gets relief, he can say the court acted under pressure,” she remarked, adding that the litigant may shape the narrative to suit his position. Addressing claims regarding her participation in events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, Justice Sharma clarified that these were not political gatherings but professional engagements related to legal reforms and interactions with young lawyers.
“Many judges have been participating in such events. This cannot be used to insinuate ideological bias,” she said, stressing that the relationship between the Bar and the Bench extends beyond courtrooms.
Family Rights and ‘Conflict of Interest’ Argument
Responding to claims that her children being empanelled as government lawyers constituted a conflict of interest, Justice Sharma made a pointed remark: “If the wife of a politician can become a politician, if the children of a politician can become politicians, how can it be said that the children of a judge cannot enter the profession of law?”
She added that denying such opportunities would infringe upon fundamental rights, and no direct nexus had been shown between her family members’ roles and the case at hand.
“A Lie Repeated Doesn’t Become Truth”
In a broader comment on public discourse, the judge cautioned against attempts to influence judicial proceedings through repeated allegations. “A lie, even if repeated a thousand times in court or on social media, does not become truth,” she said, reaffirming that judicial decisions are based on law and evidence, not narratives.
Justice Sharma also noted that the same litigants had not raised concerns about bias when interim relief was granted in their favour in earlier proceedings.
“There are several cases where orders were passed in favour of parties associated with Arvind Kejriwal. No allegations were raised then,” the court observed, suggesting selective invocation of bias claims.
The recusal applications were filed by Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others in response to a plea by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging Kejriwal’s discharge in the excise policy case. The applicants argued that prior adverse rulings indicated prejudice.
However, the court dismissed these arguments, stating that dissatisfaction with judicial outcomes cannot be equated with bias.
FAQs:
Q1. Why did Arvind Kejriwal seek recusal?
He alleged bias based on prior adverse orders and claimed a conflict of interest involving the judge’s family.
Q2. What did the court rule?
The Delhi High Court rejected the recusal plea, stating there was no valid ground for withdrawal.
Q3. What is the significance of the ruling?
The judgment reinforces judicial independence and clarifies limits on recusal pleas in high-profile cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment