‘Recusal easy path but I will not recuse’: What reasons did Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma cite while rejecting Recusal application in Delhi Excise case?
Justice Sharma noted that the Court cannot be so fragile as to yield to imaginary apprehension of bias against the institution and should adjudicate in adherence to the Constitution and the law rather than unfounded insinuations.
Syed Raiyyan
Published on: 21 April 2026, 10:29 am
ON MONDAY, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to recuse herself from adjudicating the revision application against the Rouse Avenue Court’s decision to discharge all accused, including former Chief Minister of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal, in the Delhi Excise Policy Case. The decision came in the recusal application filed by Kejriwal and a few other accused persons requesting the recusal of Justice Sharma on the grounds of apprehension of bias on her part in the accused persons’ minds.
In their application, they had averred that Justice Sharma’s language and tenor in her previous decisions involving the applicants evinced a preconceived opinion in the judge's mind regarding their guilt. Moreover, they argued that the Court, in the present revision petition, had been too generous to the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’).
The applicants particularly stressed that the Court made prima facie observations against the discharge order of the Rouse Avenue Court, even without hearing the applicants. Kejriwal, in an additional affidavit, had further invoked the empanelment of Justice Sharma’s children as Central Government Counsel as a ground for recusal.
On April 13, appearing in person, Kejriwal had listed ten reasons as to why a reasonable apprehension of bias had arisen – ranging from an order passed by her on March 9 where she remarked that the trial court’s discharge order was prima facie erroneous after a short, urgent hearing, to her participation in events of the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, the legal wing of the Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh. That day, Justice Sharma had reserved judgment.
Integrity of the Institution
Recusal would have been the ‘quiet, easy and uncontroversial’ path after claims of impartiality were made against her, Justice Sharma started, almost as a proem for her judgment. But she had decided to hear and decide the application on merits, since the issue concerned the integrity of the judicial institution as a whole, and not just herself. “The litigants”, said the judge, “have put me and the [judicial] institution on trial.”
She stressed that the conclusion of the case would undoubtedly set a precedent for future litigators, and that fact weighed heavily on her mind. Given the gravity of the matter, striking at the core of institutional integrity and her dignity as a judge, she believed that, rather than convenience, the case must be decided according to the country's jurisprudence on recusal.
“Neither uncommon nor unusual for a Court to record a prima facie view”
The applicants had argued that the March 9 order, which prima facie recorded the trial court’s discharge order as “erroneous” was made after hearing the CBI for a mere ‘five minutes’ and without recording the submission of any of the accused persons. They had also argued that no proper notice had been served to the accused, and thus, they could not appear in the hearings Yet the order had observed that they had been duly served. They also took issue with Justice Sharma’s decision to stay the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) by the trial court, even when the CBI had never prayed for that relief.
