‘Court almost declared me guilty’: Arvind Kejriwal lists 10 reasons for Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s recusal

ON APRIL 13, 2026, the Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court, heard the arguments, and reserved judgment, in the recusal petition filed by the former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, along with a few other accused, in the Delhi Excise Policy case. 

Arguing in person, Kejriwal contended that the previous orders passed and the Court’s conduct in the present revision petition raise reasonable apprehensions in the mind of the applicants regarding a fair and unbiased hearing before Justice Sharma. It would therefore be proper for the Judge to recuse herself from the matter. He provided ten specific reasons as to why these apprehensions have arisen. 

The petition for recusal or transfer of matter has been filed by Kejriwal while a challenge to an order of a Delhi court discharging him and 22 other accused in the Liquor Policy case is ongoing. The discharge order that came on February 27, 2026 had noted that the evidence adduced in the chargesheets did not raise “grave suspicions” against the accused. However, in a challenge to the order by the CBI, Justice Sharma noted that the discharge order was prima facie erroneous, leading Kejriwal to file the recusal plea.

Read more about the background of the case and the order discharging the accused here. 

‘March 9 order, participation in Adhivakta Parishad’: Ten grounds cited by Kejriwal

First, Kejriwal averred that the relevant test for likelihood of bias is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party, and not the integrity of the Court. Relying upon Kanaklata v. NCT of Delhi (2015), he contended that an earlier strongly worded order against oneself in similar circumstances is a reasonable ground for fearing a potentially prejudicial order. It was also submitted that a previous finding of the Court on a matter of law must be distinguished from a finding on a matter of fact. While in the former case the judge may not necessarily disqualify themselves, it has been held in State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak (1998) that in the latter case, disqualification becomes the proper course of action.Kejriwal then averred that when Justice Sharma dealt with his bail application in the Excise Duty case, and his challenge to arrest previously, the orders in the cases were so conclusive that he felt that the Court had ‘almost declared him guilty’. Such statements revealed a preconceived notion in the mind of the presiding judge. This raises the apprehension in the minds of the parties about whether the Court will be able to reevaluate such categorical statements in the present case. This apprehension arises more so due to the completely contradictory Session Court’s decision discharging the applicants of all allegations.  

Secondly, Kejriwal pointed out that Justice Sharma, in an order passed on March 9, seemed  predisposed to the opinion that the trial court’s order discharging the applicants was prima facie erroneous with respect to certain issues. The fact that a decision given by the trial court after analysing 40,000 pages worth of evidence was held erroneous after a short, urgent hearing raised further concerns.

As his third and fourth reasons, Kejriwal referred to the Court decision to adjourn the Enforcement Directorate proceedings related to the present case, and to stay the disciplinary proceedings against the Investigating officer as directed by the trial court, respectively. He submitted that these reliefs were granted even though neither the ED nor the IO was a party to the case, and no such relief was prayed for. 

Kejriwal also submitted, as the fifth reason, that the March 9 order had been passed without allowing the accused to be heard or serving any notice to them in advance. 

“This court has had MP/MLA roster since 5 January. We analysed the revision petition. There is no other case which is being heard at this speed,” Kejriwal argued, “These two cases are pertaining to important political opponents. . ." The undue haste with which the Court has approached the case, he noted, raises doubts in the minds of the accused regarding the capacity of the judge to hear the case in an unbiased manner. 

The ED and Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) routinely have all their arguments accepted by Justice Sharma, with nearly every request being turned into a favourable order. For instance, Kejriwal noted that even though the revision petition filed by the CBI was generic and did not contain specific counters against the findings related to the accused made in the Session’s Court order,, the High Court had admitted the revision application.  

Finally, Kejriwal brought up Justice Sharma’s participation in events of the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, the legal wing of the Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh. This, he argued, created a reasonable apprehension of bias in a politically sensitive case, regardless of any explicit ideological statements. He also cited remarks by Home Minister Amit Shah on social media discussions about how Kejriwal will be forced to appeal against the High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.