‘I am put on trial’: 12 reasons why Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma won’t exit Arvind Kejriwal case

Former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal had moved a plea seeking Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s recusal from hearing the revision plea in the Delhi excise policy case.

Why Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma won’t recuse

Listing out the reasons for refusing to recuse from hearing the case, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma gave the following reasons.

• The rules of natural justice must apply equally when a judge is judging a litigant and when a litigant seeks to judge a judge. Can it be said that, without any material on record, a judge can be placed under a veil of suspicion merely on the basis of apprehension?
• For a litigant, the judge is expected to follow the principles of natural justice, evaluate material, and decide in accordance with law and reason. The same fairness must apply when allegations are sought to be made against a judge.
• Even a political leader, however powerful or influential he may be, cannot be permitted to weaken or damage an institution by making insinuations against a judge without any material.
• I am fully conscious of the fact that today, I am not to judge the litigant, but the litigant has put me and this institution on trial, and it will be dealt with as it should be, not only on my behalf but on behalf of the institution of the judiciary itself.
• What is also important is the fact that today I am dealing with the apprehension in the mind of the litigant and not actual bias in myself, which needed a thorough examination.
• To reiterate, though choosing the path of recusal – without even hearing the application for recusal – would have been quiet, comfortable, uncontroversial and easy, but a reputation once surrendered to accusation of bias, if not dealt with, will not be easy to reclaim.
• The strength of a judicial institution lies in its strong resolve to respond appropriately to such accusations, fearlessly and unhesitatingly. It is with this resolve that I begin writing my judgment and deal with every accusation hurled at me in an objective manner, without being affected by any of it.
• Merely because an earlier order of the court may not have been in favour of the applicant cannot be a ground for seeking recusal, and a litigant cannot be permitted to browbeat the court by seeking a bench of his choice.
• If such requests for recusal were to be entertained, every litigant against whom an interim order is passed by a judge of a high court would start seeking recusal of that judge from hearing the matter. Courts would then be flooded with such frivolous applications.
• Fair justice has to be done to both parties by a judge, and not only to one. That is precisely why, even in that case, an opportunity was granted to the agencies to file their reply.
• The litigant cannot have one set of rules for himself, which this court must follow, and another set of rules for the opposite party. The CBI is also a party before this court. This court cannot permit the justice delivery system to be made vulnerable to unfounded allegations against the judge.
• To conclude, mere unease is wholly insufficient for a judge to recuse. Allegations of even perceived bias must have some connection with reality. Suspicion without substance, and apprehension without foundation, cannot become grounds to seek recusal of a judge.

Arvind Kejriwal’s plea

Arvind Kejriwal had sought that the discharge order passed by the trial court after over 3 months of hearing was declared erroneous in five minutes of hearing by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

“I was really shocked, and I started to doubt, serious apprehensions whether the court is biased and whether I will get justice here,” he said. Arvind Kejriwal further argued that the judge’s order, in five matters including his and Manish Sisodia’s bail plea, almost amounted to passing judgment.

Arvind Kejriwal further argued that the judge had attended events organised by Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Parishad, which is an ideological body of the BJP and the RSS.

“Your honour (Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma) has attended their event 4 times… Their ideology, we are strongly against it.. this is a political case,” said Arvind Kejriwal.

Prima facie opinion no ground for recusal: Justice Abhay S Oka

Meanwhile, in an interview with The Indian Express, former Supreme Court judge, Justice Abhay S Oka, explains the evolving legal landscape on “recusal”, the “master of the roster” system, and why he believes judges must sometimes show the “magnanimity” to ignore frivolous allegations and stay on a case.

On a judge recording prima facie observation, Justice Oka opined, “Suppose a writ petition is moved before a judge for ex parte ad interim relief. He grants ad interim relief after hearing the petition and records prima facie observations. He has to record prima facie observations before passing a drastic order of interim relief. Now, the remedy for the aggrieved party is to come to the court and apply for the vacating of that interim relief.”

He continued, “It happens day in and day out. We express a prima facie view of a case while passing interim orders, but ultimately on some day we end up dismissing the case because prima facie view is prima facie view. When we express a prima facie view, obviously, there’s no detailed hearing given to the respondent on the other side, and therefore, that is always subject to change.”

The former top court judge “candidly” argued that only because a judge expresses a prima facie view in some other case, per se, becomes ground for seeking recusal.

Delhi HC judge recuses from hearing contempt plea against Kejriwal for ‘circulating’ court recordings

On April 22, Delhi High Court’s Justice Tejas Karia recused himself from hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking contempt action against AAP convener Arvind Kejriwal, and other political leaders, for circulating audio and video recordings of the former Delhi Chief Minister arguing his plea seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the alleged liquor policy scam.

The plea also sought removal of videos of court proceedings from social media platforms.

When the PIL, filed by practising advocate Vaibhav Singh, was taken up before a bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Karia on April 22, the bench at the outset said that “this matter will not be heard by this bench”.

PIL seeks action against Kejriwal for ‘illegally’ sharing Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s courtroom footage

A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Delhi High Court seeking the removal of an allegedly unauthorised video recording of court proceedings on April 13 in a plea filed by former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal seeking Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s recusal from hearing the Delhi excise policy case.

The petition, filed by advocate Vaibhav Singh seeking action against seeks action against several political leaders and public figures including Arvind Kejriwal, Digvijaya Singh, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Sanjeev Jha, Punardeep Sawhney, Jarnail Singh, Mukesh Ahlawat, Vinay Mishra, and journalist Ravish Kumar, alleges a “preplanned conspiracy” by political actors to circulate the footage and undermine public confidence in the judiciary.