On Monday, a Delhi High Court panel headed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma started issuing its decision on requests from Arvind Kejriwal and associates for her to step aside from the excise policy matter. The judge characterized the scenario as a no-win dilemma for her but an advantageous position for the Aam Aadmi Party leader.
The requests originated from filings by Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others, asking Justice Sharma to withdraw from considering the Central Bureau of Investigation’s challenge to his acquittal in the alcohol policy dispute.
Kejriwal contended that earlier unfavorable rulings by the judge, such as denying bail to him and co-defendants including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha, suggested prejudice. He further claimed a potential conflict, noting that the judge’s offspring serve as attorneys for the central government.
While documenting Kejriwal’s further arguments, Justice Sharma discussed the broader legal and systemic effects of these withdrawal requests through several direct statements.
Key excerpts from Justice Sharma’s ruling include: This recusal request creates a no-win scenario. In this instance, I find myself in a spot where either choice—stepping aside or not—will prompt scrutiny. The petitioner has engineered a beneficial outcome for himself.
If relief is denied, he can claim he foresaw the result. If granted, he might assert the court yielded to influence. The individual can frame the events to fit his perspective.
Withdrawing would suggest to the public that judges align with specific political groups or views. This court cannot endorse that by agreeing to step down.
The matter was straightforward regarding whether I should withdraw. My fairness and honor were questioned. The simpler option would have been to step aside without review. I chose to evaluate the request because it concerns the judiciary’s integrity. I resolved to handle it unaffected by the claims, consistent with my 34-year judicial tenure.
