Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma not to recuse from Arvind Kejriwal CBI Appeal

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to recuse from hearing CBI appeal against discharge of Arvind Kejriwal and others. The Court reassured that “I will decide the main matter without being affected by recusal applications – decide without fear, or favour.” During the pronouncement on 20th April, 2026, Justice Swarana Kanta voiced her thoughts “Should I recuse? - My silence as a Judge is being put to test.” Justice Swarana took more than an hour to judicially reason why recusal was not warranted, as highlighted below.

The Question of Apprehension, Perception and Recusal

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized that “presumption of impartiality has to be rebutted and mere apprehension is not enough.” She noted that the litigant did not doubt her integrity or ability, but sought transfer of the case based on perceived bias and apprehensions. Such apprehension, she observed, cannot form the basis for recusal when it is not supported by any demonstrable cause or legal ground. The Court underscored that judicial function cannot be surrendered by a judge for the mere perception of a litigant, and that recusal must stem strictly from law, not from the “thoughts, perception, illusion or speculation” of a party.

Allegations of Bias, Personal Attacks, and Forum Shopping

The Court firmly rejected attempts to question judicial competence on the basis of prior adverse orders or their subsequent treatment by higher courts. Justice Sharma observed that “parties cannot question competence of Judge for modification or setting aside by Higher Court” and warned that allowing such arguments would enable litigants to cross institutional boundaries. She described the recusal plea as part of a broader pattern where such applications risk becoming a “routine tool for forum shopping” and could delay the delivery of justice. Addressing personal allegations, including those relating to participation in events or professional background of relatives, she stated that these were selectively raised and lacked any nexus to the case, reiterating that it cannot be assumed, imagined or inferred – there should be clear nexus.

Adjudication and Integrity of the Judicial Institution

Justice Sharma reflected on the “easier path” of recusal but chose to prioritize her duty to adjudicate. She stated that withdrawing in the absence of actual conflict would amount to “abandoning my adjudicating responsibility.” Drawing from the arguments presented, including the analogy of “Agni Pareeksha,” she remarked that while litigants may wish to establish their own innocence, they cannot simultaneously cast aspersions on the judge. The Court stressed that “there cannot be different criteria for litigant judging a Judge and a Judge judging a litigant.” Ultimately, she held that courts must remain “totally and undisturbed by accusations and insinuations purely on basis of jurisprudence of recusal,” ensuring that justice is neither evaded nor delayed due to unfounded allegations, and that the institution remains resilient against such challenges.

Background of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma - Arvind Kejriwal Clash

Today, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma pronounced the judgment on plea by Arvind Kejriwal and others. There is a back story to it, dating back to February 2026.

Discharge by CBI Court

The CBI Court in Delhi Liquor Policy case discharged all 23 accused persons, including Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia. The Court even questioned the CBI for going beyond its territory, powers, while investigating the Delhi Excise Policy Case. However, the Central Bureau of Investigation, not satisfied with the Trial Court’s decision, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court.

Appeal before Delhi High Court

CBI’s appeal against the CBI Court’s discharge of all accused in Excise Policy Case came to be listed before Delhi High Court’s Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. This is where the present conflict sprouted. Arvind Kejriwal appeared in person before the High Court, seeking Justice Swarana Kant Sharma to recuse (step aside) from his case. Kejriwal claimed “reasonable apprehension” of bias. The major grounds argued for such request are:

The Court allegedly favoured CBI/ED arguments
Earlier judicial remarks by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma suggested bias
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma attended four of RSS-BJP linked events
Justice Sharma’s children are empanelled as lawyers for the Central government
Her Children allegedly receive work from the same law officers appearing in the case, as claimed by Arvind Kejriwal

The arguments were so intense that despite the context of the matter, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma praised Kejriwal’s arguments, saying he could “become a lawyer”.