9 Reasons Delhi High Court Judge Didn't Back Out From Arvind Kejriwal's Case

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma read an hour-long order explaining why she will not recuse from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation's appeal against the discharge of AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and 21 others in the Delhi Liquor Policy case. She countered the allegations, emphasized the presumption of impartiality, and held that personal apprehensions or 'illusions' do not meet the threshold for recusal. She stated that insinuations and doubts presented with no evidence cannot compel recusal, and she defended participation in bar events as not implying ideological bias. She rejected the notion of a regulatory 'conflict of interest' unless a demonstrable nexus affected the decision-making power, and noted that relatives on government panels do not automatically bias a case. The judge also referenced past reliefs granted to Kejriwal-related matters, clarified that Supreme Court findings do not imply bias, and stressed that recusal over public statements by politicians is not a valid ground. She argued that recusal would set a troubling precedent and undermine judicial credibility, and concluded that the judiciary should not be governed by social media narratives or political pressures.