JUSTICE SHARMA REMAINS: Recusal Denied in Liquor Policy Probe

New Delhi: Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday refused to step down from the liquor policy case, rejecting the pleas moved by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal and others.

The former chief minister virtually appeared before the judge through video-conferencing and urged her to take on record his rejoinder to the written submissions filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Justice Sharma said although the pronouncement was scheduled for 2:30 pm, she was going out of her way in accepting Kejriwal’s rejoinder as a written submission in the matter.

Justice Sharma said, “I faced circumstances where my impartiality and dignity were challenged. Natural tendency was to withdraw from the case without even hearing the application”. She said that she chose to hear the arguments with an eye on impartiality. The judge further said, “The High Court, not the litigant, decides the competence of a judge”.

She said a politician cannot be allowed to “cross the line or assess judicial competence”. The judge said the inclusion of her children as government lawyers on the panel cannot raise an inference of bias in the liquor policy case.

“The CBI stated that none of the relatives of the judge have appeared before any court in any capacity in the excise policy case, nor have they had any connection with it. Even if relatives are on the government panel, the plaintiff must prove their connection and relevance to the case. No such connection has been shown”, Justice Sharma said.

She said a plaintiff cannot be allowed to create a situation that undermines the judicial process.

Previously, the High Court had ordered that the new affidavit filed by Kejriwal be taken on record. In fact, Kejriwal had filed a new affidavit in the High Court, making new allegations against Justice Sharma and requesting her recusal from the hearing. Kejriwal stated in his affidavit that both of Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma’s children work under Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

Kejriwal’s affidavit stated that Mehta is the lawyer representing the CBI. “Consequently, how can Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma pass an order against Tushar Mehta?,” he questioned. Earlier, on April 13, Kejriwal, while presenting his own arguments, questioned Justice Sharma’s bench and requested her to recuse herself from the hearing.

Kejriwal, while requesting Justice Sharma’s recusal, stated that the court proceedings in the case had led to this situation, and that he did not expect a fair hearing. Expressing distrust in Justice Sharma, Kejriwal stated that the Sessions Court’s order was erroneous as it was passed without hearing the parties.

He had stated that when the first hearing took place in the High Court on March 9, none of the 23 accused were present. Only the CBI was present. However, in the very first hearing, Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma, without even hearing the arguments of the other side, declared that the Sessions Court’s order “prima facie” appeared to be wrong, the AAP convener had said.

Kejriwal had alleged that the ED’s proceedings were stayed without an application. He stated that the CBI’s appeal was being heard on March 9, but Justice Sharma also stayed the ED’s proceedings.