The Delhi High Court has rejected Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing matters linked to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) appeal in the alleged Delhi liquor policy case.
Kejriwal had argued that there was a “grave, bona fide and reasonable apprehension” of bias and sought a different bench to hear the case. However, the court dismissed the request, stating that judicial impartiality cannot be questioned on perception alone. Justice Sharma emphasised that “justice does not bow to pressure” and reaffirmed the judiciary’s duty to remain independent and unbiased as proceedings in the case continue.
Court Rejects Recusal Plea
In a setback for Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi High Court on Monday refused to allow the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing petitions related to the CBI’s appeal in the alleged liquor policy case. Kejriwal had approached the court arguing that he had a reasonable apprehension that the proceedings may not remain impartial if heard by the same judge.
The court, however, firmly rejected the plea, observing that allegations of bias cannot be based on subjective perception or dissatisfaction with judicial proceedings. Justice Sharma underlined that the judiciary functions on the presumption of impartiality and that recusal cannot be sought without substantial and credible grounds. She also reiterated that justice must remain unaffected by external pressure and public narrative, stating that “justice does not bow to pressure,” reinforcing the principle of judicial independence.
Allegations Of Bias And Legal Arguments
The plea was filed by Kejriwal in connection with ongoing proceedings involving the CBI’s investigation into alleged irregularities in the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy. His legal team argued that there existed a “reasonable apprehension” of bias and sought the transfer of the matter to another bench to ensure fairness.
Kejriwal had personally appeared before the court earlier and raised concerns regarding judicial neutrality. His counsel argued that the circumstances created doubt in the minds of the accused about the fairness of the proceedings. On the other hand, the CBI opposed the recusal request, stating that it was unsubstantiated and amounted to an attempt to delay or derail ongoing proceedings.
The court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the request, observing that such allegations must be supported by clear evidence and cannot be based on assumptions or political perceptions.
Background
The case relates to the Delhi government’s excise policy, which was later withdrawn amid allegations of procedural irregularities and corruption. The matter has been under investigation by central agencies and has led to multiple legal proceedings involving senior political leaders.
The case has remained politically sensitive, with allegations and counter-allegations exchanged between the ruling AAP leadership and investigative agencies. The Delhi High Court has been hearing several related petitions, including challenges to investigative actions and procedural decisions taken during the probe.
Over time, the matter has evolved into a major legal and political flashpoint, drawing attention to questions of governance, accountability, and institutional scrutiny in policy formulation.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
This case highlights the importance of maintaining a strong balance between judicial independence and the perception of fairness in high-profile matters. Courts must remain insulated from political pressure and public narratives, ensuring that decisions are guided strictly by law and evidence. At the same time, individuals approaching the judiciary must also feel confident that their concerns are heard within a transparent and accountable system.
However, allowing perception-based challenges without strong legal grounding could risk undermining the stability of judicial processes. What is equally important is that courts continue to communicate their reasoning clearly to strengthen public trust in institutions. As this case continues, it raises a broader question for our democracy: How can we ensure complete judicial independence while also maintaining public confidence in fairness, especially in politically sensitive cases?
Also Read: 5.2 Magnitude Earthquake Hits Manipur’s Kamjong, No Immediate Damage Reported
Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday refused to withdraw from the #Delhiliquorpolicycase, rejecting allegations of bias raised by AAP national convenor #ArvindKejriwal, asserting that judges do not bow to political pressure.
— IndiaToday (@IndiaToday) April 20, 2026
Read more: https://t.co/ayVeLEuSZ8… pic.twitter.com/ce9TEDYvb9
