In a sharp and detailed order, Justice Sharma pulled up AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal over his remarks suggesting a possible “miscarriage of justice,” firmly rejecting his plea seeking her recusal from the case. A video of the bit is now going viral on social media Pronouncing the order over nearly an hour, the judge made it clear that allegations of bias cannot rest on personal belief or apprehension. “Recusal has to stem from law and not from narrative,” she said, refusing to step aside from the proceedings.
‘Not Prudence, But Abdication Of Duty’Justice Sharma observed that accepting such a plea without concrete evidence would amount to a failure of judicial responsibility.
“If the court was to recuse, it would not be prudence but abdication of duty,” she said, adding that doing so would lend legitimacy to “aspersions, insinuations and doubts” cast on the court.
She emphasised that judges are duty-bound to hear matters assigned to them and cannot withdraw merely because allegations are raised.Court Rejects ‘Apprehension Of Bias’ ArgumentKejriwal had argued that a “reasonable apprehension of bias” arose because the judge’s adult children are empanelled as central government counsel and receive work from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represents the CBI in the case.Dismissing the claim, the court said no direct nexus had been shown between these professional engagements and the matter at hand.“The file seeking recusal did not arrive with evidence… it came with aspersions, insinuations and doubts cast on my fairness,” Justice Sharma noted.‘Courtroom Cannot Be A Theatre Of Perception’Taking a firm stance, the judge said judicial proceedings cannot be guided by subjective perceptions of litigants.“A courtroom cannot be a theatre of perception,” she said, adding that a litigant’s unease or belief that justice may not be served does not meet the legal threshold for recusal.“A judicial function cannot be surrendered by a judge to the mere perception of a litigant,” the court observed.Warning Against ‘Troubling Precedent’Justice Sharma cautioned that accepting such pleas could have serious consequences for the judiciary. “If I were to accept these applications, it would set a troubling precedent,” she said, warning that it could open the floodgates for litigants especially powerful ones to seek recusal based on unfounded allegations.She added that “every unproven and unfounded accusation of bias” not only targets an individual judge but also undermines the integrity of the institution as a whole.Matter Listed For April 29With the recusal plea dismissed, the court will continue to hear the main case, now listed for April 29.