Delhi High Court Judge Rejects Kejriwal's Plea for Recusal in Liquor Policy Case
'No Evidence, Only Allegations, Insinuations': Justice Sharma's Point-By-Point Rebuttal To Kejriwal
News 18
Image: News 18
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court dismissed former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's request for her recusal from the liquor policy case, stating his claims lacked evidence and were based on unfounded suspicions. She emphasized that political leaders cannot undermine judicial integrity without clear proof.
- 01Justice Sharma rejected Kejriwal's recusal plea due to lack of evidence.
- 02She stated that allegations against judges must be supported by clear proof.
- 03Kejriwal's claims regarding the judge's family ties to government lawyers were dismissed.
- 04The judge highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judiciary.
- 05No litigant can dictate the personal or professional lives of judges' family members.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court ruled against former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's request for her recusal in the ongoing liquor policy excise case. She stated that Kejriwal's arguments were based on unfounded suspicions and lacked the necessary evidence to warrant her stepping down. Justice Sharma emphasized that a judge's integrity should not be questioned without substantial proof, asserting that even influential political figures must not undermine the judiciary. Kejriwal's claims regarding her connections to the Adhivakta Parishad, linked to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), were dismissed as irrelevant to the case. The judge also criticized Kejriwal for mentioning her children’s professional affiliations, stating that there was no demonstrated link between her family members and the case. She reinforced that judicial competence cannot be questioned without valid evidence, highlighting the need for respect towards the judiciary's independence.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
This ruling reinforces the independence of the judiciary and sets a precedent for how allegations against judges are handled, potentially affecting future legal proceedings involving political figures.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
Reader Poll
Do you believe political leaders should be able to question judicial decisions?
Connecting to poll...
Read the original article
Visit the source for the complete story.


