Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court on Monday rejected AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking her recusal from hearing matters related to the alleged Delhi Excise Policy scam. Justice Sharma delivered a detailed 90-minute verdict, slamming Kejriwal’s shameful attempt to cast aspersions on her integrity and question her honesty.
Justice Sharma stated that Kejriwal’s plea was based on “unfounded suspicions, conjectures and manufactured allegations” rather than any tangible conflict of interest on her part.
Kejriwal and his co-accused in the liquor scam case, Manish Sisodia, had sought Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s recusal based on three grounds: her children’s working as counsels in the central government panel, her participation in events organised by the Adhivakta Parishad lawyers’ forum, an RSS-linked organisation, and certain observations in earlier orders that were later modified by the Supreme Court.
Justice Sharma dismissed Kejriwal’s allegations point-by-point, and highlighting how the AAP supremo’s stunt has tried to put the judiciary on trial in a case where he is the litigant.
Justice Sharma stated that recusing would have been the ‘easy’ path, but she chose not not do that, and instead she would respond, because, “once reputation is surrendered by judge when allegations are levelled, if not dealt with, then it will be very difficult to reclaim.” She further added that a judge’s competence will be decided by the higher court, not by a politician or a litigant.
On the allegations of her attending Adhivakta Parishad events, Justice Sharma stated, “The events were not political. Speakers were invited to speak on legal issues. In past many judges of this country have been participating in them. Merely because i was invited to deliver lecture, cannot be basis to insinuate political bias.”
“Floodgates of court cannot be opened by allowing a litigant to plant seeds of distrust solely on this basis”, she added.
On the allegations by Kejriwal that her children are working with the government panel and hence the judge should recuse, she stated, “CBi stated that neither of the relatives of this court (her children) appeared or were connected with the excise policy case before any court in any capacity. Even if relatives are empanelled on govt panels, the litigant has to show relevance and impact on this case. No such nexus has been shown. Their empanelled or relationship has no connection with this dispute.
Court: This court having served as judge for nearly 34 years is adequately trained to pay any heed to whatever is said on social media. But such campaigns are brought in proceedings, judicial proceedings are adjudicated on basis on records and not what is said on social media.…
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) April 20, 2026
“If children of politicians can enter politics, how will it be fair to question when children or family of a judge enter the legal profession and struggle and prove themselves like others”, she asked.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma reminded Kejriwal that she has been a judge for 34 years and Kejriwal’s social media campaigns against her will not decide her competency and honesty.
“This court having served as judge for nearly 34 years is adequately trained to pay any heed to whatever is said on social media. But such campaigns are brought in proceedings, judicial proceedings are adjudicated on the basis on records and not what is said on social media. Many Spouses, siblings and children of judges are there in this profession. When my children were born when I was a judicial magistrate, it cannot be exploited by anyone. Litigant can’t dictate how children of judge have to live their lives, in absence of any proof that office of judge was misused”, justice Sharma stated.
In the end, Justice Sharma rejected Kejriwal’s plea for her recusal, and gave the dates of April 29 and 30 for the hearing of the main case. The remaining respondents are to file their response by Saturday.
