Allegations of Conflict of Interest Explained
The Delhi High Court has rejected Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case, reaffirming the principle of judicial independence. The matter forms part of the ongoing judge recusal plea Kejriwal case, where allegations of bias were raised against the judge. For background, see Kejriwal Delhi High Court recusal case.
Kejriwal had sought recusal on the ground that Justice Sharma’s children are empanelled as central government counsel, arguing that this created a reasonable apprehension of bias. These concerns were detailed in his earlier filing, explained in Kejriwal affidavit on judge conflict of interest.
Rejecting the plea, the court held that such allegations were not supported by evidence and were based on conjectures and assumptions. It emphasized that recusal cannot be sought on the basis of unfounded suspicion and that judicial impartiality is presumed unless proven otherwise.
Court’s Key Observation
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made strong observations while dismissing the plea, stating:
“If I were to accept these applications it would set a troubling precedent. It becomes my bounden duty to answer it fearlessly. The arguments before this court have fallen short of proof required in law of recusal. A judge cant recuse to satisfy a litigant’s unfounded suspicion of bias and based on manufactured allegations… This court will stand up for itself and this institution though it may appear difficult. The robe this court wears is not so light. If recusal on such grounds is accepted it would risk the adjudicatory process that is shaped. It would then be ‘justice managed,’ she said.”
The court further clarified that merely because a judge’s family members are practicing advocates or are empanelled with the government, it cannot be presumed that the judge is biased. It observed that a litigant cannot dictate how a judge’s family members choose their profession in the absence of any proof of misuse of judicial office.
Addressing claims of perceived bias raised in earlier controversies, the court noted that assumptions cannot replace proof. These concerns had also surfaced in related discussions, covered in RSS seminar bias allegation in Kejriwal recusal case.
Importantly, the court also observed that a politician cannot be permitted to judge judicial competence based on personal perceptions.
Concluding that the judge recusal plea Kejriwal case lacked merit, the court dismissed it, holding that recusal requires legally sustainable grounds and cannot be based on vague apprehensions or dissatisfaction with proceedings.
