Justice Swarnakanta Sharma of Delhi High Court had rejected the petition of Arvind Kejriwal, in which he had demanded to stay away from the hearing of the Delhi Liquor Policy case. Justice Swarnakanta Sharma had made it clear that she would not withdraw from this case, but now she is recusing herself from another case.

Justice Swarnakanta recused herself from which case?

This is a matter of demand to cancel the case registered by CBI against Congress MP Karti Chidambaram in the case related to Diageo Scotland. Karti Chidambaram has demanded cancellation of the case registered by CBI. Justice Swarnakanta Sharma of Delhi High Court recused herself from this hearing. This case was sent to the Chief Justice. Now the case will be heard after the formation of a new bench.

Kejriwal raised questions on Justice Swarnakanta

Kejriwal expressed his big decision by writing a letter to Justice Swarnakanta. He said that he no longer expected to get justice from Justice Swarnakanta, hence he would neither appear in the court himself nor send his lawyer. In his letter, Kejriwal made it clear that he has taken this decision after listening to his conscience. Citing Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha, he said that now instead of legal fight, he will adopt the path of moral and ideological protest.

Justice’s response to Kejriwal’s petition

He made it clear that if Justice Swarnakanta gives any decision, he will reserve the right to approach the Supreme Court against it. Justice Swarnkanta Sharma, while dismissing Kejriwal’s petition on April 20, made it clear that an easy option would have been to withdraw from the hearing without considering the petition, but she considered it appropriate to take a decision on the merits of the case, keeping institutional purity and dignity paramount.

The Justice further said that this was not just a legal question before him, but a challenge which put both the judge and the judicial institution to the test. The Delhi High Court had reiterated that the impartiality of the judge is taken for granted unless refuted by concrete evidence and the judge cannot be recused from the case on the basis of mere apprehension or personal perception of a litigant.

Also read: ‘Rules are necessary for every religious institution’, why did the Supreme Court say this in the case related to Nijanuddin’s Aulia Dargah?