Catch-22 for me, win-win for Kejriwal: What Justice Sharma said on recusal plea
"If a judge's order is set aside by a superior court, it does not give a litigant the right to stand here and claim that the judge is unfit to hear the case.
Judge refuses to withdraw from Kejriwal's case
"Justice doesn't bow to pressure"
Recusal would not be prudence, but abdication of duty. It would be an act of surrender." - the judge asserted.
"If he [Kejriwal] does not get the relief, he will say that he had already predicted the outcome. If he gets the relief, he can say the court acted under pressure. The litigant may portray the situation whichever way it suits his narrative."
A Delhi High Court bench led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday, April 20, delivered its verdict on pleas by Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking her recusal from the excise policy case.
In a sharp framing of the controversy, the judge described the situation as a "Catch-22" for herself but a "win-win" for the AAP chief.
Justice Sharma, after delivering a detailed verdict both in English and Hindi, ultimately rejected the recusal applications.
On the allegation that she attended events organised by Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), which is affiliated to RSS, she said that the same were not political events.
"They were programmes on new criminal laws and the women's day events or to interact with younger members of the bar. Many judges have been participating in those events. Such participation cannot be used to insinuate ideological bias," she stated.
The relationship between the Bar and the Bench is not confined to courtrooms, the judge underscored.
The case stemmed from applications moved by Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others, urging Justice Sharma to recuse herself from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation's plea challenging his discharge in the liquor policy case.
The AAP chief argued that prior adverse orders by the judge, including refusal of relief to him and other accused like Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha, indicated bias. He also alleged a "conflict of interest", claiming the judge's children were empanelled as central government lawyers.
Justice Sharma, while placing Kejriwal's additional submissions on record, addressed both the legal and institutional implications of such recusal pleas in a series of pointed remarks.
"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 can't enter the profession of law? This would mean taking away the fundamental rights of a family of judges".
In the opinion of this court, even if the relatives of this court are on the government panel, the litigant has to show the impact of that on the present case or the decision-making power of this court. No such nexus has been shown.
Justice Sharma also said:
"As an officer of this court i am conscious of the fact that a lie even if repeated thousand times in court or on social media does not become truth. It remains false. Truth doesn't lose its force merely because a lie is repeated several times.
"I choose the path to resolve the controversy.
The strength of judiciary lies in its strong resolve to decide the acquisitions. I have written the order without being affected by anything."
Orders favouring Kejriwal not highlighted
Justice Sharma referred to certain examples of Kejriwal being granted ex-parte relief by her. However, he never raised any allegation of bias then since the orders were in his favour, the Court said.
"People belonging to Arvind Kejriwal's party did not argue that no interim order should be passed in their favour.
There are several other cases pending before this Court, including the leaders belonging to Arvind Kejriwal's party.
Many such orders have been continued by this Court and this judge but not allegations were raised then because perhaps the order was in their favour."
No comments:
Post a Comment