Delhi High Court judge Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday refused to recuse herself from hearing the liquor-policy case as she rejected the pleas of AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and others for her withdrawal.
In the pronouncement that lasted for more than an hour, Justice Sharma said a litigant cannot be allowed to judge a judge without any material and judges cannot recuse themselves to satisfy a litigant's unfounded apprehension of bias.
She added that a political leader cannot be allowed to damage an institution without any basis, as a personal attack on a judge is an attack on the judiciary itself, and "a politician cannot be permitted to cross the boundary and sit in judgment over the competence of a judge".
Justice Sharma concluded that the narrative in the pleas for her recusal was based on conjectures and "perceived inclinations", and cautioned that the case could open the doors for "powerful litigants to attack judges" and their families for "forum shopping".
"This court will stand up for itself and the institution.... I will not recuse," the judge said, adding that she would decide the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) petition against the discharge of the accused in the excise-policy case without being affected by the recusal pleas.
"The application seeking recusal are, therefore, rejected and in this rejection, this court affirms its fidelity to the Constitution on behalf of myself and every judge who stands by it. Justice lies not in shielding under pressure, but in doing justice of objectively," she said.
During the day, Justice Sharma, however, recused herself from hearing a 2025 bail plea of former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Naresh Balyan in a Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) case pending since 2025.
Without specifying any reason, she directed that the matter be placed before another judge on April 23.
Kejriwal had raised several objections against Justice Sharma 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.
In her judgment, Justice Sharma countered every contention raised by Kejriwal and others, stating that the recusal applications did not come with any evidence but "aspersions, insinuations and doubts" on her integrity and impartiality, despite a judicial career of 34 years.
Responding to the objection that the court passed an ex-parte interim order on the CBI's petition on the very first day, Justice Sharma said such orders were even passed in favour of AAP leaders in other cases.
The judge also junked Kejriwal's apprehension of bias on the basis of her attendance at events of the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad -- an RSS-affiliated confederation of lawyers -- observing that these are professional functions organised by lawyers that are attended by several judges and not political events.
Justice Sharma asserted that judges cannot be placed in an ivory tower and expected to lead a life in seclusion, and ruled that accepting an invitation to deliver a lecture or interact with younger members of the bar cannot be used to insinuate political association.
She also cautioned against allowing the opening of the floodgates for litigants who want to sow seeds of "distrust, suspicion and mistrust" in this manner.
Justice Sharma also strongly objected to the allegation of her having a conflict of interest in hearing the case as her children are on the central government's panel and receive cases through the solicitor general who represented the CBI, saying there is a clear distinction between a conflict of interest and an "attempt" to create an impression of conflict of interest.
She said none of her children has any "proximity" or "nexus" to the excise-policy case and if the plea of Kejriwal and others is accepted, the children of judges can never enter the legal profession, which would also take away their fundamental rights.
Noting the CBI's contention that the RTI information being relied upon by Kejriwal in support of his claim is "misconceived", Justice Sharma said a false imputation, even if repeated 1,000 times in a court or on social media, does not become the truth.
"A litigant cannot dictate how the children or family members of a judge are to live their lives. Whether they must rise through their own struggles and hard work or whether they should be prevented from doing so. In the absence of any proof beyond doubt that the office of the judge has been misused for the benefit of her children or family, even a whisper of such allegation cannot be permitted," the judge said.
She said only a higher court can decide if a judicial decision is in accordance with the law and a judge cannot recuse for the sake of a litigant's "general unease".
"The robe that this court wears will not be allowed to be weighed down by insinuations. The arguments and pleadings before this court have fallen short of the standard required under the law and jurisprudence of recusal. Allegations and insinuations, though persistent and loud, can never take place of the proof required in law for seeking recusal," the court ruled.
Besides Kejriwal, applications for the judge's recusal were also filed by AAP leaders Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak.
Other respondents, including Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai, had also sought her recusal.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared in the court for the CBI and opposed the plea. He had earlier urged Justice Sharma to initiate contempt action against Kejriwal and the others for seeking 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.