Explained: Why Delhi HC Rejected Kejriwal’s Recusal Plea

April 21, 2026

A judge says “no recusal,” a politician says “bias,” and the courtroom becomes a stage for a bigger question: who defines judicial fairness in politically sensitive cases?

On April 20, 2026, the Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, saw Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refuse to recuse herself from hearing a petition in the Delhi Excise Policy case involving Arvind Kejriwal and others, including Manish Sisodia. The plea came after Kejriwal, appearing in person, sought her withdrawal citing a “reasonable apprehension of bias.”

The case originates from the controversial Delhi Excise Policy (2021–22), under probe by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate over alleged irregularities like policy manipulation, cartelisation, and kickbacks. Although a trial court discharged Kejriwal and others in February 2026, strongly criticising the agencies, the CBI challenged that order before the High Court.

Recusal plea: perception over proof

Kejriwal’s argument focused not on actual bias, but the appearance of it:

Alleged participation of the judge in events linked to a lawyers’ body with perceived ideological leanings
Concerns about professional roles of her family members in the legal ecosystem
Earlier judicial observations that, according to him, appeared unfavourable or premature

He maintained that justice must not only be fair but also appear fair.

Court’s response: perception cannot override duty

Justice Sharma rejected the plea, holding that:

Mere perception or apprehension, without evidence, is insufficient for recusal
Accepting such claims could lead to strategic attempts to disqualify judges
It may open “floodgates” of forum shopping in politically sensitive cases
Judges cannot be disqualified due to relatives’ professional roles
Impartiality is presumed unless proven otherwise

She emphasised that recusal cannot become a tool to avoid difficult or high-stakes cases, reinforcing judicial duty and independence.

Broader context of the case

The excise policy case involves allegations of financial irregularities in Delhi’s liquor policy system
Multiple agencies have conducted investigations leading to arrests and political controversy
The trial court’s discharge of accused persons had already sparked legal and institutional debate
The High Court is now reviewing that discharge in revision proceedings

Why this ruling matters

This decision goes beyond one plea. It reinforces a core principle:

Judicial independence cannot rest on perception alone

At the same time, it highlights a continuing tension in high-profile cases—balancing public confidence in impartiality with protection against politically driven recusal attempts.

With the recusal plea dismissed, the case now returns to its main question: whether the trial court’s discharge order can stand legal scrutiny on merits.