1. Discharge order under challenge in revision petition — Apprehension of bias — Recusal application by discharged accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 52 , 53 , 54 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6297
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Appellant
Versus
KULDEEP SINGH & ORS. – Respondent
CRL.M.A.-11377/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tushar Mehta, S.V. Raju, D.P. Singh, Chatan Sharma, Zoheb Hossain, Manu Mishra, Garima Saxena, Venkatesh, Vivek Gurnani, Tanvi Jain, Pranjal Tripathi, Imaan Khera
For the Respondents: Tushar Agarwal, Naveen Kumar, Arun Kumar, Abhishek Mahal, Rashi Chaudhary, Pradeep Rana, Tushar Rohmetra, Shadan Farasat, Harshit Anand, Varisha Sharma, Suvarna Swain, Sumer Singh Boparai, Surya Pratap Singh, Abhilash Pathak, Sirhaan Seth, Nitesh Rana, Zainab Khan, Aditya Narayan, Aditi Singh, Suyash Pandey, Shivendra Dwivedi, Onmichon Ramrar, Dhruv Gupta, Anubhav Garg, Sanjay Hegde, Vivek Jain, Mohd. Irshad, Sadiq Noor, Ankit Tiwari, Angad Pathak, Adit S. Pujari, Shashwat Sarin, Shaurya Mittal, Dhanya Visweswaran, Abhishek Singh, Vishvendra Singh, Talib Mustafa, Ketan Kumar Roy, Shubh Mathur, Rajat Bhardwaj, Dushyant Chaudhary, Tushar Garg, Baani Khanna, Robin Singh, Kapil Balwani, Komal Thakkar, Dama Seshadri Naidu, Ramesh Allanki, Aruna Gupta, Sahil Sood, Chanchal K. Singla, Rohit Kaliyar, Akshay Malhotra, Prabhav Ralli, Stuti Gupta, Dev Vrat Arya, Samraat Saxena, Deeya Mittal, Tusharika Mattoo, Harsh Bora, Sahil Ghai, Vikas Pahwa, Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain, Arpit Goel, Deepak Jain
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tushar Mehta, S.V. Raju, D.P. Singh, Chatan Sharma, Zoheb Hossain, Manu Mishra, Garima Saxena, Venkatesh, Vivek Gurnani, Tanvi Jain, Pranjal Tripathi, Imaan Khera
For the Respondents: Tushar Agarwal, Naveen Kumar, Arun Kumar, Abhishek Mahal, Rashi Chaudhary, Pradeep Rana, Tushar Rohmetra, Shadan Farasat, Harshit Anand, Varisha Sharma, Suvarna Swain, Sumer Singh Boparai, Surya Pratap Singh, Abhilash Pathak, Sirhaan Seth, Nitesh Rana, Zainab Khan, Aditya Narayan, Aditi Singh, Suyash Pandey, Shivendra Dwivedi, Onmichon Ramrar, Dhruv Gupta, Anubhav Garg, Sanjay Hegde, Vivek Jain, Mohd. Irshad, Sadiq Noor, Ankit Tiwari, Angad Pathak, Adit S. Pujari, Shashwat Sarin, Shaurya Mittal, Dhanya Visweswaran, Abhishek Singh, Vishvendra Singh, Talib Mustafa, Ketan Kumar Roy, Shubh Mathur, Rajat Bhardwaj, Dushyant Chaudhary, Tushar Garg, Baani Khanna, Robin Singh, Kapil Balwani, Komal Thakkar, Dama Seshadri Naidu, Ramesh Allanki, Aruna Gupta, Sahil Sood, Chanchal K. Singla, Rohit Kaliyar, Akshay Malhotra, Prabhav Ralli, Stuti Gupta, Dev Vrat Arya, Samraat Saxena, Deeya Mittal, Tusharika Mattoo, Harsh Bora, Sahil Ghai, Vikas Pahwa, Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain, Arpit Goel, Deepak Jain
Recusal requires an objective, reasonable apprehension of bias based on a fair-minded observer's standard, not a litigant's subjective anxiety. Interim observations, routine professional associations, and the independent careers of a judge's family members do not constitute legitimate grounds for recusal.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 19 and 45 - Recusal of Judge - Standards for determining reasonable apprehension of bias - A litigant's subjective anxiety, unease, or fear of an adverse outcome cannot be a ground for recusal; the test must be based on the objective standard of a reasonable and informed person (Paras 203-211).
(B) Interim Orders - Prima facie observations recorded while granting interim relief or issuing notice are tentative and do not constitute pre-determination of the final outcome, and thus cannot be used as a ground for seeking recusal (Paras 71-82).
(C) Judicial Conduct - Participation in professional legal seminars or events organized by bodies of the Bar, absent any specific ideological statement or direct nexus to the case, does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias or ideological inclination (Paras 151-173).
(D) Conflict of Interest - Independent professional engagements of a judge’s relatives, such as empanelment as government counsel, do not constitute a conflict of interest unless a direct link to the specific case is established (Paras 174-192). (E) Appellate Scrutiny - Modification or setting aside of a judge's previous orders by a higher court is an integral part of the judicial hierarchy and does not render the judge unfit to hear subsequent matters in the same or related proceedings (Paras 141-146).
Facts of the case:
Several discharged accused persons in a criminal revision petition filed by an investigating agency sought the recusal of the presiding judge. The grounds for recusal included interim observations made by the court in an early order, previous detailed findings in related bail and arrest proceedings, the professional engagements of the judge's relatives as government panel lawyers, and the judge's participation in legal events organized by a lawyer's association.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the grounds presented did not meet the objective threshold of a reasonable apprehension of bias. It observed that interim views are tentative and not final, appellate correction is a standard process, and professional interactions within the legal fraternity are necessary and separate from political or ideological bias.
Issues: Whether the cumulative effect of interim judicial observations, prior detailed statutory findings in related proceedings, attendance at professional legal events, and the professional empanelment of the judge's relatives creates a reasonable apprehension of bias warranting recusal.
Ratio Decidendi: Recusal is governed by the "real danger" or "reasonable apprehension" test, which requires objective evidence from the perspective of a fair-minded observer. Subjective suspicion or a litigant's fear of an adverse outcome is insufficient to displace the presumption of judicial impartiality attached to the oath of office. Routine judicial functions, such as granting interim relief, or the independent professional careers of a judge's family members, do not constitute a conflict of interest absent a direct nexus to the litigation.
Result: Applications seeking recusal are dismissed.
Act Referred
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: S.19, S.45
Code of Civil Procedure: O.XXXIX R.1, O.XXXIX R.2
Code of Civil Procedure: O.XXXIX R.1, O.XXXIX R.2
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
recusal
-
grounds for recusal
- apprehension of bias (Para 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260)
- prima facie observations (Para 53, 54, 55, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82)
- prior judicial findings (Para 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125)
- attendance at legal events (Para 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173)
- conflict of interest through relatives (Para 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195)
-
grounds for recusal
- appeal
-
recusal
Table of Contents
2. Applicants sought recusal alleging bias from prior findings and observations; CBI opposed it as forum-shopping scandalizing court. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 )
3. Prima facie observations in interim orders, earlier judgments by same judge, or professional engagements of relatives do not establish bias. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 , 196 , 197 , 198 , 199 , 200 , 201 , 202 , 203 , 204 , 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 210 , 211 )
4. A litigant's unfounded apprehension of bias, without objective material, is insufficient to compel a judge to recuse. (Para 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 210 , 211 , 212 , 213 , 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 , 218 , 219 , 220 , 221 , 222 , 223 , 224 , 225 , 226 , 227 , 228 , 229 , 230 , 231 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 , 237 , 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 , 242 , 243 , 244 , 245 , 246 , 247 , 248 , 249 , 250 , 251 , 252 , 253 , 254 , 255 , 256 , 257 , 258 , 259 , 260 )
5. Recusal applications dismissed; court to hear main petition on merits unaffected by these applications. (Para 261 , 262 , 263 , 264 , 265 , 266 )
6. Can a judge's prima facie observations in an interim order form a ground for recusal on the basis of apprehension of bias?
No; such observations are tentative and do not establish bias. A litigant cannot seek recusal merely because a prima facie view is adverse. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 )
7. Does a judge's attendance at legal seminars organised by a lawyers' body with a perceived ideology give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias?
No; attending a professional legal event as a judge does not demonstrate ideological alignment or create a reasonable apprehension of bias. (Para 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 )
8. Does the independent professional engagement or empanelment of a judge's relatives with a government automatically create a conflict of interest?
No; in the absence of a direct, substantial, and real connection to the lis, such remote circumstances do not establish disqualification. (Para 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 )
9. Can a litigant's mere unease or anxiety that a judge may decide against him be a valid ground for recusal?
No; objective material supporting a reasonable apprehension is required. Unfounded subjective suspicion does not meet the threshold. (Para 204 , 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 210 , 211 )
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 13.04.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 20.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 20.04.2026 + CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 & CRL.M.A. 6853/2026 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. S.V. Raju, Mr.
D.P. Singh and Mr. Chatan Sharma, ASGs, with Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Mr. Manu Mishra, Ms. Garima Saxena, Mr. Venkatesh, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Ms. Tanvi Jain, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi and Mr. Imaan Khera, Advocates alongwith Mr. J. S. Randhawa - DIG, Mr. Alok Shahi -ASP, Mr. I. B. Pendhari-SP (CBI) and Mr. Naveen, Sub-Inspector for CBI.
versus KULDEEP SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Mr. Naveen Kumar, Mr. Arun Kumar, Mr. Abhishek Mahal and Ms. Rashi Chaudhary, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Pradeep Rana and Mr. Tushar Rohmetra, Advocates for R-2 Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Harshit Anand, Ms. Varisha Sharma and Ms. Suvarna Swain, Advocates for R-3 Mr. Sumer Singh Boparai, Mr. Surya Pratap Singh, Mr. Abhilash Pathak and Mr. Sirhaan Seth, Advocates for R-4 Mr. Nitesh Rana, Ms. Zainab Khan, Mr. Aditya Narayan, Ms. Aditi Singh and Mr.
Suyash Pandey, Advocates for R-5 Mr. Shivendra Dwivedi and Ms. Onmichon Ramrar, Advocates for R-6 and R-10 Mr. Dhruv Gupta and Mr. Anubhav Garg, Advocates for R-7 Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Jain, Mohd. Irshad, Mr. Sadiq Noor, Mr. Ankit Tiwari and Mr. Angad Pathak, Advocates for R-8.
Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Mr. Shashwat Sarin, Mr. Shaurya Mittal and Ms. Dhanya Visweswaran, Advocates for R-9.
Mr Abhishek Singh, Mr Vishvendra Singh, Mr Talib Mustafa, Mr Ketan Kumar Roy and Mr Shubh Mathur, Advocates for R-11.
Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Mr. Dushyant Chaudhary and Mr. Tushar Garg, Advocates for R-12 Ms. Baani Khanna, Mr. Robin Singh, Mr. Kapil Balwani and Ms. Komal Thakkar, Advocates for R-16 Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ramesh Allanki, Ms. Aruna Gupta and Mr. Sahil Sood, Advocates for R-17.
R-18 in person (through VC).
Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Kaliyar and Mr. Akshay Malhotra, Advocates for R-19 Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Mrs. Stuti Gupta, Mr. Dev Vrat Arya, Mr. Samraat Saxena and Ms. Deeya Mittal, Advocates for R-20 Ms. Tusharika Mattoo, Advocate for R-21 Mr. Harsh Bora and Mr. Sahil Ghai, Advocates for R-22 Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayank Jain, Mr. Madhur Jain, Mr. Arpit Goel and Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocates for R-
23 (through VC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
J U D G M E N T
Index to the Judgment WHEN I WAS ASKED TO RECUSE… ......................................................... 5 SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT ...................................................... 8 Submissions By Respondent No. 18 Arvind Kejriwal ........................................... 8 Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 8 Manish Sisodia ............................ 16 Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 3 Vijay Nair.................................... 18 Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 19 Durgesh Pathak ........................ 21 Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 12 Rajesh Joshi ............................... 22 Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 5 Arun Ramchandran Pillai .......... 23 Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner-CBI ....................................................... 23 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ............................................................................. 27 A. ALLEGED APPREHENSION OF BIAS IN VIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2026 ........................................................................... 27 (i) Advance Service of Respondents ............................................................... 29 (ii) Stay on remarks against the Investigating Officer .................................... 31 (iii) Prima facie observations recorded in the order dated 09.03.2026 ........... 34 (iv) Examples of Prima facie observations & Interim Relief Granted in Favour of Respondent No. 18 Sh. Arvind Kejriwal & Members
