‘Politicians cannot be left to judge judicial competence’: Delhi High Court judge Swarana Kantha rejects Kejriwal’s plea to recuse himself from GST case

NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday refused to recuse herself from hearing the liquor policy case involving former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, stating that “impartiality is a presumption in favor of the judge” and it was not a “legal requirement but a moral requirement”.Justice Sharma said, “Politicians cannot be allowed to cross boundaries and cannot judge judicial competence”.“Live Law” quoted her as saying: “Only allowing parties to sow the seeds of distrust on this basis will not open the floodgates of the court.”She said the presumption must be rebutted by the litigant when seeking to avoid it, and further noted that “mere concerns or personal perceptions of the litigant are not sufficient”.Kejriwal appeared in person and requested Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to recuse himself from the hearing of a petition challenging his removal from office in the liquor policy case.Kejriwal claimed in her application that she had serious, genuine and reasonable apprehensions that the hearing in the case before her would not be fair and neutral.His plea was that she heard multiple cases filed in the CBI FIR, including Kejriwal’s petition against his arrest, but never granted relief to any of the accused.center group discussion about her childrenReferring to the allegation that her children acted as advisers to a central government panel, the judge said: “Only Kejriwal made this allegation.” (Only Kerjriwal ji made his accusations), adding that if such accusations were expected, “the court would not be able to hear any case in which UoI is involved”. She further said, “If the children of politicians can enter politics, how fair is it to question when the children or family members of judges enter the legal profession and struggle and prove themselves like everyone else”, noting that “such insinuations are not only baseless but ignore the judicial office and the integrity associated with it”.“There is a conflict of interest, but it appears to others to be a conflict of interest. In this case, they are portraying a conflict that does not actually exist. Litigants cannot be allowed to create a situation that degrades the judicial process,” she said.About participating in RSS affiliate eventsJustice Sharma said her participation in the Adhivakta Parishad event was not political as the speakers were invited to speak on legal issues. “Many judges in this country have competed in these competitions in the past. Just because I was invited to speak does not constitute a basis for insinuating political bias,” she said.“Who can say that my heart is closed because I participated in some activities organized by lawyers, and I will not judge the case fairly.“(“How could anyone say that just because I attended an event hosted by a bar organization, I have become closed-minded or that I will no longer adjudicate cases fairly)” she observed.She further said: “Lawyers are sometimes affiliated with a political party, but when lawyers appear in court, cases are decided on the merits, not on ideological grounds.”