Justice Sharma rejected contention by Kejriwal in which he had mentioned home minister Amit Shah’s comment. (Photos: Delhi HC, PTI File)
This, Kejriwal and his party had said, amounted to Shah presuming the HC would pass an order against Kejriwal and others in the corruption case in which a trial court has discharged them.
Also read | ‘Defining moment’: Delhi HC judge Swarana Kanta Sharma refuses to recuse in Kejriwal liquor policy case
‘Any politician can express opinion’
On Kejriwal’s contention that there was an “apprehension of bias” since the minister had made the statement, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said seeking recusal of the judge on the ground that a politician has made a comment, would amount to proceeding “purely on imagination”.
The court has no control on what a politician may chose to state in the public domain, she noted.
“Any politician or Union Minister may express opinion which may be adverse to litigant. There is no control on what politician or Mr Kejriwal, who is politician himself, may state in public or in politics. It is matter of common knowledge that such statements are made by political parties in opposition,” she reportedly said.
‘Mere apprehension not enough’
She added, “Impartiality is a presumption in favour of a judge. It is not a legal requirement but an ethical one. When person seeks recusal, that presumption has to be rebutted by litigant. Mere apprehension or personal perception of litigant is not enough.”
On February 27, a trial court discharged all the 23 accused persons in the case, including AAP leaders Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, and Telangana politician K Kavitha.
The trial court had also severely criticised the CBI’s investigation in the case.
After the CBI filed appeal before the HC challenging the discharge, Kejriwal filed his application seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal and made submissions in person. Others including Sisodia and AAP’s Durgesh Pathak made similar pleas.
After the judgment being pronounced, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the CBI and government, called it “a defining moment for the institution”.
“There is no bitterness against the petitioner, and the court has laid down a law on the recusal,” he said.
The judge said these applications of recusal would have no bearing when she will decide the matter finally on CBI’s appeal against Kejriwal and others’ discharge in the corruption case.
