Justice Sharma rejects Kejriwal recusal plea in excise case

TL;DR

Recusal Plea Rejected: Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed Arvind Kejriwal's application seeking her removal from the excise policy case.[[1]](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-justice-swarana-kanta-sharma-rejects-arvind-kejriwals-plea-for-her-recusal-in-excise-policy-case)[[2]](https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/arvind-kejriwal-case-hearing-live-updates-delhi-high-court-hear-plea-in-excise-policy-case-10645815)
No Bias Evidence: The judge ruled that claims of family ties, event attendance, and prior orders lacked any proven nexus to impartiality concerns.[[1]](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-justice-swarana-kanta-sharma-rejects-arvind-kejriwals-plea-for-her-recusal-in-excise-policy-case)
Judicial Duty Upheld: Sharma chose to continue hearing the case, calling recusal an abdication that would erode institutional credibility.[[1]](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-justice-swarana-kanta-sharma-rejects-arvind-kejriwals-plea-for-her-recusal-in-excise-policy-case)

The story at a glance

Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected pleas from Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal and co-accused including Manish Sisodia for her recusal from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) challenge to their discharge in the Delhi Excise Policy case. The ruling came on April 20, 2026, after arguments on alleged bias from her children's government panel roles and event attendance. This follows a trial court discharge of Kejriwal and 22 others on February 27, 2026.[[1]](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-justice-swarana-kanta-sharma-rejects-arvind-kejriwals-plea-for-her-recusal-in-excise-policy-case)

Key points

Justice Sharma issued a detailed order emphasizing a presumption of judicial impartiality that requires evidence to rebut, not mere apprehension or insinuations.
Kejriwal's plea cited her son and daughter as Central government panel counsel, attendance at Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP) events linked to RSS, and prior orders favoring CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED) that were later set aside by Supreme Court.
The court found no link between her children's roles and the case, noting such panels are common and do not disqualify judges from government-related matters.
ABAP events involved legal topics like new criminal laws and women's day programs, with many judges participating; no ideological bias was shown.
CBI opposed the plea, arguing it would disqualify most judges from political cases and amounted to pressuring the judiciary.
The judge noted Kejriwal created a win-win: denial allows claims of predicted bias, grant implies pressure worked.
Prior favorable orders to AAP without recusal demands contradicted bias claims; her 34-year career and Supreme Court comments supported impartiality.

Details and context

A trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai, and Chanpreet Singh Rayat on February 27, 2026, in the excise policy case. CBI challenged this before Justice Sharma, who on March 9 issued notice, stayed some trial court directions, and deferred related Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) proceedings.[[1]](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-justice-swarana-kanta-sharma-rejects-arvind-kejriwals-plea-for-her-recusal-in-excise-policy-case)

The recusal applications followed those March orders, which Kejriwal saw as favoring probe agencies. Justice Sharma described the pleas as putting the judiciary on trial, based on conjecture rather than facts, and warned against opening floodgates to mistrust.

She stressed recusal on personal apprehension fails the reasonable bias test and would signal judges align with parties, harming public faith.

Key quotes

"I hold in clear terms that I will not recuse from this case." – Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma[[1]](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-justice-swarana-kanta-sharma-rejects-arvind-kejriwals-plea-for-her-recusal-in-excise-policy-case)[[2]](https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/arvind-kejriwal-case-hearing-live-updates-delhi-high-court-hear-plea-in-excise-policy-case-10645815)

"The litigant has put the institution of judiciary on trial. I choose the path to resolve the controversy." – Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma[[1]](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-justice-swarana-kanta-sharma-rejects-arvind-kejriwals-plea-for-her-recusal-in-excise-policy-case)

"Truth does not lose its force merely because a lie is repeated several times." – Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma[[1]](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-justice-swarana-kanta-sharma-rejects-arvind-kejriwals-plea-for-her-recusal-in-excise-policy-case)

Why it matters

The ruling reinforces judicial independence amid high-profile political cases, rejecting recusal based on unproven family or event links that could broadly disqualify judges. For accused like Kejriwal, it means Justice Sharma continues overseeing CBI's discharge challenge, with no immediate shift in proceedings. Watch the substantive hearing on the CBI revision, though further appeals on recusal remain possible.

What changed

Before April 20, 2026, Kejriwal's recusal pleas were pending after March orders in CBI's challenge. Justice Sharma's rejection on that date dismissed all applications, allowing her to proceed with the excise policy revision without interruption.

FAQ

Q: Why did Kejriwal seek Justice Sharma's recusal?

A: He cited her children's roles as Central government panel counsel, her attendance at ABAP events affiliated with RSS, prior CBI/ED-favorable orders set aside by Supreme Court, and overall apprehension of bias against AAP.[[1]](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-justice-swarana-kanta-sharma-rejects-arvind-kejriwals-plea-for-her-recusal-in-excise-policy-case)

Q: What was the court's main reasoning against recusal?

A: No evidence rebutted the presumption of impartiality; no nexus shown between family roles or events and the case; claims relied on insinuations, not facts; recusal would erode judicial credibility.[[1]](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-justice-swarana-kanta-sharma-rejects-arvind-kejriwals-plea-for-her-recusal-in-excise-policy-case)

Q: How did CBI respond to the recusal plea?

A: It argued such grounds would disqualify judges from most government or political cases, calling it an institutional pressure tactic and maligning of judiciary.[[1]](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-justice-swarana-kanta-sharma-rejects-arvind-kejriwals-plea-for-her-recusal-in-excise-policy-case)

Q: What happens next in the excise policy case?

A: Justice Sharma will continue hearing CBI's challenge to the February 27 trial court discharge of Kejriwal and others.[[1]](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-justice-swarana-kanta-sharma-rejects-arvind-kejriwals-plea-for-her-recusal-in-excise-policy-case)