Delhi HC – Excise Policy Case* *Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma | Recusal Plea Dismissed | April 2026*
*Delhi HC – Excise Policy Case*
*Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma | Recusal Plea Dismissed | April 2026*
*1. What Happened*
*Applicants*: Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai + others
*Plea*: Sought recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing CBI’s revision against 27.02.2026 trial court order that discharged Kejriwal & 22 others in Delhi excise policy case.
*Grounds raised by Kejriwal*:
1. *Attending ABAP events*: Justice attended Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad seminars – alleged ideological bias
2. *Children on Govt panel*: Her children are Central Govt panel counsel – conflict of interest
3. *Past orders*: Her earlier orders against Kejriwal/Sanjay Singh overturned by SC – bias
*2. Justice Sharma’s Order – 20.04.2026*
*Dismissed all recusal applications*. Key holdings:
> _“The file seeking recusal did not arrive with evidence; it arrived on my table with aspersions, insinuations and doubts cast on my integrity, fairness, and impartiality.”_
*On “Catch-22 situation”*: Any outcome – recusal or not – would be questioned. Judicial decisions must rest on legal/factual grounds, not perceptions.
*On ABAP events*: Not political. Were programmes on _new criminal laws, Women’s Day, bar interactions_. “Many judges participate. Such participation cannot be used to insinuate ideological bias.”
*On children as Govt counsel*: “Even if relatives are on government panel, litigant has to show impact on present case. No such nexus shown.”
*On competence*: _“Judge’s competence is decided by the higher court, not the litigant. Can’t let politician judge judicial competence.”_
*Principle*: _“Floodgates can’t be opened to sow seeds of mistrust.”_ Recusal would _“lend legitimacy to aspersions… amount to abdication of duty”_.
*3. Last Hearing – Aftermath*
*Your note*: _“Justice Sharma had dismissed the recusal applications… Thereafter, on the last date of hearing, the matter was adjourned and the respondents (accused) were granted one final opportunity to file their replies.”_
*Context*:
1. *CBI’s revision*: Challenges 27.02.2026 trial court discharge order. On 09.03.2026, Justice Sharma issued notice to all 23 accused + stayed trial court’s recommendation for action against CBI IO.
2. *Recusal bid failed*: CJ D.K. Upadhyaya earlier said recusal is for concerned judge to decide. CBI called plea “frivolous, vexatious, contemptuous”.
3. *Next step*: With recusal rejected, Justice Sharma will hear CBI revision on merits. Accused got _“one final opportunity to file replies”_ to CBI’s plea. No more adjournments.
*4. Legal Fallout*
1. *No precedent for judge-shopping*: CBI argued – if ABAP attendance = bias, then large number of HC/SC judges must recuse in political cases.
2. *Test for bias*: SC law – not actual bias, but _reasonable apprehension in fair-minded observer_. Justice Sharma held applicants showed none – only “conjectures and insinuations”.
3. *AAP boycott*: Reports say Kejriwal/Sisodia boycotted further proceedings before Justice Sharma. Remedy now is SC against recusal rejection.
*Status*: Matter to proceed before Justice Sharma. Accused must file replies. No more delay likely.
This order is being cited as _“defining moment”_ on judicial recusal – balancing _nemo judex in causa sua_ vs duty to hear cases assigned by roster.
