Legal News & Court Updates.

When the Bench Refuses to Blink: Delhi High Court Denies Recusal in High-Profile Excise Case

In a robust affirmation of judicial autonomy, the Delhi High Court has categorically rejected a raft of applications seeking the recusal of Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from a pending revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The order puts to rest a series of impassioned requests from high-profile respondents—including former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia—who had alleged that the Court harbored subjective bias against them.

The Weight of the Gavel

The case involves complex legal challenges arising from the Delhi Excise Policy investigations. Following a discharge order passed by the trial court in February 2026, the CBI sought revision in the High Court. Shortly thereafter, several discharged accused filed applications seeking the recusal of the judge, citing various grounds ranging from past judicial observations in bail orders to alleged ideological leanings due to attendance at legal seminars organized by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad .

The respondents argued that the Court had already formed a "pre-conceived judicial view" in previous bail and arrest matters, and that recent interim orders—specifically those issued on March 9, 2026—demonstrated an urgency and an ideological alignment that created a "reasonable apprehension" of bias.

A Contest of Narrative vs. Jurisprudence

During the arguments, the applicants emphasized that their plea was not a challenge to the Judge’s personal integrity, but a request to dispel the "fear" of bias. Counsel for the accused argued that in cases affecting personal liberty, the "appearance of justice" must be beyond reproach, suggesting that even a reasonable apprehension justifies a change in the bench.

The Solicitor General of India, appearing for the CBI, countered sharply. He argued that the applications were a tactical bid at "bench hunting." He maintained that judicial findings, whether in bail orders or arrest challenges, are based on material produced in court and cannot be conflated with personal bias. He warned that accepting such pleas would lead to a scenario where any litigant unhappy with a judge’s previous rulings could force their removal, effectively paralyzing the judicial system.

The Architecture of Impartiality

In a detailed, 108-page judgment, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dissected the jurisprudence of recusal. The Court underscored that presiding over controversial or politically sensitive cases is an inherent part of the judicial function.

The Court addressed the "conflict of interest" allegations—specifically regarding the professional empanelment of the judge's family members—by clarifying that the independent careers of relatives cannot be held hostage to the judge's position. The Court held that unless there is a direct, substantial connection to the specific dispute at hand, such allegations are merely attempts to intimidate the institution.

Key Observations

• On the Test of Bias: "The test of bias cannot be manufactured by a litigant... Mere unease or anxiety of a litigant cannot be a ground for recusal."
• On Judicial Duty: "If I were to withdraw readily without hearing arguments on these applications, I would be abandoning my adjudicatory responsibility in the face of perceived allegations by a litigant."
• On Institutional Stature: "The robe that this Court wears is not so light that, on a mere whisper of accusation, it would seek refuge in recusal where no reason for such recusal exists."
• On Professional Engagement: "Judges cannot be expected to live a life of complete seclusion, cut off from society, organizations, and even the Bar."

The Final Verdict: "I Will Not Recuse"

The Court dismissed the applications, ruling that the apprehension of bias must be based on objective material, not conjecture or the "speculative fear" of an unfavorable outcome.

By declining to step aside, Justice Sharma has reaffirmed that a judge’s duty to the Constitution stands above the optics of litigation strategy. The Court observed that while justice must be seen to be done, it must also be protected from being "manipulated, intimidated, or bent by pressure of any kind." The main petition is now set to proceed on its merits, with the Court declaring its commitment to remain uninfluenced by the "media-driven narrative" that had sought to overshadow these proceedings.

The decision serves as a significant precedent in the capital's legal circles, reinforcing the boundary between genuine claims of conflict and the strategic use of recusal motions as a tool for forum shopping. As the curtain falls on this preliminary skirmish, the focus shifts back to the core legal arguments of the excise policy investigation.