‘I say in clear terms, I will not recuse’: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejects Arvind Kejriwal’s recusal plea

Justice Sharma: Order will be uploaded later

Breaking- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejects Arvind Kejriwal’s recusal plea

Justice Sharma: I hold in clear terms that I will not recuse from this case

Justice Sharma: Every unproven and unfounded accusation of bias or partiality is not merely put on individual judge but also cast aspersions on collective integrity of the institution of judiciary itself

Justice Sharma: Recusal has to stem from law and not from narrative

Court's VC is down

Justice Sharma: This court will stand up for itself and for the institution when such standing is required, though it may appear difficult. This court will decide when duty demands that such case is to be decided even if inconvenient, and will not yield or retreat where doing so would erode the credibility of the institution itself. The robe of this court is not so light that a mere whisper of accusation would seek refuge in recusal where no reason for such recusal exists.

Justice Sharma: Judges are expected to bring to the bench an open mind and not an empty one

Justice Sharma: Reputation of judge not an asset but an institutional asset

Justice Sharma: Even a political leader howsoever powerful or influential cannot be permitted to weaken or damage institution by making insinuations against a judge without any material

Justice Sharma: Recusal will carry deeper ramifications

Justice Sharma: A judicial function cannot be surrendered by a judge to the mere perception of a litigant

Justice Sharma: Allowing recusal will allow Public to believe that judges are aligned to a particular ideology...If this court were to pen a recusal it would open the doors for powerful litigants to attack judges their families

Justice Sharma: The catch 22 situation of seeking recusal...If this court were to recuse on account of accusations the litigant would be in a position to claim that his allegations had substance and proof and the judge recused..

Justice Sharma: My judicial career expands over 34 years which has tested me on touchstone of not only legal issues but on ethical parameters expected of a judge

Justice Sharma: When the applicant seeks to target one judge and and raises allegation concerning the judge and her family it is not considered by him to be an attempt affecting the dignity of the institution

Justice Sharma: An an officer of this court i am conscious that a lie or a false imputation even if repeated thousand times in a court or social media doesn't become truth

Justice Sharma: Relatives of this court have no connection with the case in question

Justice Sharma: A litigant cannot dictate how the children or family members of a judge are to live their lives in absence of any proof that office of judge was misused

Justice Sharma: This ground taken only by Shri Kejriwal

Justice Sharma: Impartiality is not a legal requirements but an ethical one. When a judge takes oath there arises a presumption that she will discharge her duties without fear or favor

Justice Sharma: No litigant can be permitted to severe or weaken the relationship between the bar and bench which is sacred and stands above politics of any level.

Justice Sharma: Many judges have been participating in such events...Only because I was interacting with members of the bar.. same can’t be used to insinuate bias against judge

Justice Sharma now addresses the ground raised by Kejriwal on participation of the judge in the event of Adhivakta Parishad

Justice Sharma (in hindi): Now I will deal with allegations where it was said that whatever order I pass is set aside by the Supreme Court

Court lists out times when it granted prima facie reliefs in other matters

Justice Sharma: I am not judging the litigant but the litigant has put me and the institution on trial

Justice Sharma: I had to decide totally undisturbed and unaffected

Justice Sharma: Challenge before me was not to adjudicate difficult questions… but to adjudicate a recusal application for myself

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma presides

The high court will pronounce its judgment at 4:30 pm today on the recusal plea

Court records: He states at Bar that he has authorised Mr Akshay.

SG Mehta: CBI is aggrieved.. No other aam aadmi would have got this benefit

Justice Sharma: I will take it on record not as a rejoinder but as a written submission...You give it to me on record and i will deal with it in my judgment....I am taking it on record as written submission of Shri Kejriwal going out of the way so that he doesn't feel tomorrow that he hasn't been heard

Justice Sharma: There is no provision in law that you file a rejoinder to a written submission. You might not know it since you are not a lawyer

Justice Sharma: You shouldn’t be saying that it will be miscarriage of justice. The court went out of the way to take on record your additional affidavit which is usually not done for any common man. I took it on record considering you were party in person

Kejriwal: This is wrong. I would like to say I had clearly said that Mr Tushar Mehta said he would like to file a reply... we said we want to have a copy of written submissions and we said we will file a rejoinder. Apne maam allow bhi kar diya tha lekin vo order mai ana reh gaya.

SG Mehta: He filed additional affidavits after the judgment was reserved

SG Mehta: I may be given 60 seconds to put things in perspective so that there is no wrong narrative

Court assembles

Court will assemble at 11 am, Kejriwal and SG Tushar Mehta are appearing through VC