Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday rejected the plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking that she recuse herself from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s challenge to their discharge in the Delhi liquor policy case, Live Law reported.

Sharma had reserved her verdict in the case on April 13.

In her judgement on Monday, she said that she would decide the main case “without being affected by the recusal application”, Bar and Bench reported.

“Recusal would not be prudence but abdication of duty,” Sharma was quoted as saying. “It would be an act of surrender.”

She also said that the petition seeking her recusal amounted to putting “the institution of judiciary on trial”, adding that the “strength of judiciary lies in its strong resolve to decide the accusations”.

The main CBI case has been listed for further hearing on April 29, after Sharma said that some respondents had not filed their replies yet.

On April 14, Kejriwal had filed a fresh affidavit before the court seeking the judge’s recusal from the case. The former Delhi chief minister’s affidavit had stated that the judge’s son and daughter have been empanelled as counsels by the Centre.

Kejriwal had highlighted that they are both allocated cases by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is appearing before the court representing the CBI.

An empanelled counsel is a lawyer selected by a government body, public sector undertaking or organisation to represent their legal cases for a designated period.

Kejriwal had argued that the apprehensions of bias are “direct, grave and impossible to ignore”.

Responding to the allegations pertaining to her children, Sharma said that the alleged conflict of interest must be clearly demonstrated in the particular case to mandate recusal, Bar and Bench reported.

She highlighted that her children have not been associated with this case in any capacity.

“A recusal would lead the public to believe that judges are aligned with a particular political party,” the legal news outlet quoted the judge as saying.

The case

The CBI had alleged irregularities in the Delhi government’s liquor excise policy, which has since been scrapped. Based on the CBI case, the Enforcement Directorate also launched an investigation into allegations of money-laundering.

The policy came into effect in November 2021. It was withdrawn in July 2022 with Vinai Kumar Saxena, the Delhi lieutenant governor at the time, recommending an investigation into the alleged irregularities of the policy.

The two central agencies alleged that the Aam Aadmi Party government at the time modified the liquor policy by increasing the commission for wholesalers from 5% to 12%. This allegedly facilitated the receipt of bribes from wholesalers who had a substantial market share and turnover.

On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 others accused by the CBI in the case. There was no overarching conspiracy or criminal intent in the excise policy, the Rouse Avenue Courts had ruled.

The trial court also criticised the central agency for implicating Kejriwal without any cogent material. It said that the chargesheet had several gaps not supported by any witnesses or statements.

However, the High Court on March 9 stayed the adverse observations made by the trial court about the CBI. The matter was heard by Sharma, who prima facie observed that the trial court’s findings were erroneous.

Kejriwal had written to the chief justice of the High Court seeking the transfer of the case from Sharma to another judge, but the request was declined. The former Delhi chief minister had contended that no specific reasons had been recorded for commenting against the trial court’s order.

He also noted that the judge had earlier denied bail to several persons accused in the case who had been subsequently granted relief by the Supreme Court.

The Aam Aadmi Party chief sought the transfer on the ground of a “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension that the matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality”.