“In absence of any proof… of misuse by children of a judge, not a whisper of such allegation can be made,” said Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma replying to Kejriwal’s recusal plea
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and Arvind Kejriwal. (File)
Delhi High Court judge justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday pronounced her verdict at 4:30 pm on pleas moved by Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking her recusal from the liquor-policy case, as she took on record additional pleadings from the AAP chief on his plea.
Justice Sharma said although the pronouncement was scheduled for 2:30 pm, she was “going out of her way” in accepting Kejriwal’s rejoinder as a written submission in the matter.
What Justice Sharma said
Delhi High Court judge justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s top quotes:
- “As an officer of this court, I am conscious of the fact that a lie even if repeated thousand times in court or on social media does not become truth. It remains false. Truth doesn’t lose its force merely because a lie is repeated several times.”
- “Do cheezo hoti hai. Ek wo hai jo actual conflict of interest hai. Aur ek ye ki aap kisi cheez ko aese project kare ki ye to conflict of interest hai. Maine usse apne judgement me deal kiya hai.”
- “If the wife of a politician can become a politician, if the children of a politician can become politicians. How can it be said that the children of a judge can’t enter the profession of law? This would mean taking away the fundamental rights of a family of judges,” said the judge, adding that none of her children have been associated with the excise policy case. “In the absence of any proof that the office of the court has been misused by the children of a judge, not a whisper of such allegation can be made…A litigant cannot dictate how children or family members of a judge are to live their lives.”
- “In the opinion of this court, even if the relatives of this court are on the government panel, the litigant has to show the impact of that on the present case or the decision-making power of this court. No such nexus has been shown. The issue, however, needs to be adressed. Merely because a judge takes oath of officer, their family does not take an oath not to enter the profession.”
- “Because this allegation has only been made by Mr Kejriwal, so the response is only being given to him.”
The plea and rejoinder
On April 13, Kejriwal stated that Justice Sharma had attended Adhivakta Parishad event linked to BJP, RSS, four times whereas the CBI, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defended the judge’s participation, submitting even sitting Supreme Court and other High Court judges had attended the event organised by the “bar association”.
The former chief minister virtually appeared before the judge through video-conferencing and urged her to take on record his rejoinder to the written submissions filed by the Central Bureu of Investigation (CBI).
Even as Kejriwal asserted that the registry’s refusal to take his rejoinder on record was “miscarriage of justice”, Justice Sharma remarked that since he was not being represented by a lawyer, the court went “out of its way” for him when it allowed him to file his additional affidavit last week, even after the order on the recusal issue was reserved.
The judge said according to the registry’s rule, a party in-person must take permission from the court to file anything and since the present case is not “extraordinary”, the same practice is being followed. She added that in law, there is no concept of filing a “rejoinder” to the opposite party’s written submissions and she would allow Kejriwal to tender his pleadings as written submissions instead, so that he does not feel that he was not heard. “You say you have respect for me. I have respect for every litigant. The rule of court will not be changed for anyone, so I will treat it as written submissions. I am taking it on record. I am giving the indulgence to Mr Kejriwal,” the judge said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared in the court for the CBI and opposed Kejriwal’s request to file a rejoinder. Mehta said nowhere in the country are pleadings taken on record after an order is reserved by a court. He also said there is no concept of filing a rejoinder to a written submission and the court should do what it would do for any ordinary litigant.
What Kejriwal said
In his latest filing, Kejriwal has said the CBI has not disputed that Justice Sharma’s children are on central government panels and receive work marked through the “solicitor general-led litigation structure”. Once these facts are admitted, the prosecution cannot be allowed to evade the legal consequences and all insinuations by the CBI against him are wholly irrelevant, the former Delhi chief minister has asserted.
Emphasising that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader has the highest regard for the Indian judiciary, the rejoinder has asserted that the federal agency has failed to justify the conflict-of-interest and apprehension-of-bias submissions in the case, and its narrative about “institutional integrity”, “anarchist practices”, “social-media campaign”, “browbeating” and “pressurising judges” is wholly irrelevant and scandalous.
“Instead of meeting the substance of the conflict-of-interest plea, the CBI has chosen to resort to speculation, imputation of motives, rhetorical alarmism and scandalous allegations against the applicant, all of which are extraneous to the limited issue that arises for consideration. It is very unfortunate that the CBI is willing to malign the entire judiciary in order to have this matter heard before only one Hon’ble judge,” Kejriwal has alleged.
He has raised several objections against the judge hearing the CBI’s plea against his discharge in the liquor-policy case, including that she had earlier denied him relief on his petition challenging his arrest and refused to grant relief on the bail pleas of other accused, including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha.
Kejriwal has also claimed that Justice Sharma had made “strong and conclusive” findings.
The former Delhi chief minister has further alleged a “direct conflict of interest”, claiming that the judge’s children are empanelled central government lawyers who receive work through the solicitor general, who is appearing in the court for the CBI.
Besides Kejriwal, the applications for the judge’s recusal have also been filed by AAP leaders Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak. Other respondents, including Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai, have also sought her recusal.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the Delhi liquor-policy case, saying the CBI’s case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
April 20, 2026, 19:17 IST
Read More
