Delhi High Court Rejects Kejriwal's Plea for Judge's Recusal in Liquor Policy Case
'Floodgates Can't Be Opened To Sow Mistrust': Justice Sharma Dismisses Kejriwal's Recusal Plea
News 18
Image: News 18
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court dismissed Arvind Kejriwal's request for her recusal from the liquor excise policy case, citing a lack of evidence for his allegations. The judge emphasized the importance of maintaining judicial integrity against unfounded claims and scheduled the next hearing for April 29.
- 01Justice Sharma rejected Kejriwal's recusal plea, stating it lacked evidence.
- 02The judge emphasized the need to uphold judicial integrity against unfounded allegations.
- 03Kejriwal's claims of conflict of interest were dismissed as conjectural.
- 04The court will hear the case again on April 29.
- 05Justice Sharma highlighted that personal attacks on judges undermine the legal institution.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea from Arvind Kejriwal (national convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party) for her recusal from the ongoing liquor excise policy case. In her ruling, Justice Sharma stated that Kejriwal's arguments were based on insinuations and lacked substantial evidence. She emphasized that allowing such a recusal would set a precedent that judges could be pressured by unsubstantiated claims. The judge firmly stated her commitment to the Constitution and the judicial process, asserting that personal attacks on judges threaten the integrity of the legal system. Kejriwal's allegations of conflict of interest, particularly concerning the judge's children being part of a government panel, were also dismissed as irrelevant to the case at hand. Justice Sharma scheduled the next hearing for April 29, reinforcing that the courtroom should not be a platform for mere perceptions without factual backing.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
The ruling reinforces the integrity of the judicial process in India, ensuring that judges are not swayed by political pressures or unfounded allegations, which is crucial for maintaining public trust in the legal system.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
Reader Poll
Should judges recuse themselves from cases based on apprehension of bias?
Connecting to poll...
Read the original article
Visit the source for the complete story.



