Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has firmly declined an application seeking her recusal from hearing the excise policy case involving Arvind Kejriwal. In a strongly worded observation, Justice Sharma asserted her commitment to judicial duty, stating that the court would not retreat in the face of aspersions or yield to attempts to question the integrity of the institution.
Background and Judicial Responsibility
The matter arose when Arvind Kejriwal sought the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from proceedings related to the excise policy case. While addressing the request, the judge emphasized that there were no valid legal grounds to warrant her withdrawal from the matter. She maintained that judicial responsibility dictates that a court must not yield or retreat when such actions could compromise the institutional credibility of the judiciary.
Justice Sharma noted that the decision-making process must remain independent and “fearless,” regardless of the difficulty or the nature of the allegations presented before the court.
Observations on Institutional Integrity
In her final order, Justice Sharma delivered a poignant defense of the judicial office. She observed that the symbolic “robes” worn by the court must remain untainted by external pressures.
“I have decided fearlessly all questions before me. The robes that this court wears cannot be weighed down by the allegations and insinuations,” she stated. She further remarked that while standing up for the institution might appear difficult, it is a necessary requirement to ensure that justice is “administered” rather than “managed.”
Absence of Evidence and Duty
The judge expressed significant concern over the nature of the recusal application, noting that the file brought before her was characterized by doubts cast on her fairness and impartiality rather than being supported by concrete evidence.
Refuting the attempt to have her step aside, she stated in court: “Main kahin nahi jaa rahi, main apni duty puri karke jaungi” (I’m not going anywhere. I will leave only after fulfilling my duty).
She concluded that the application arrived on her table laden with “aspersions, insinuations, and doubts,” rather than factual merit, and reaffirmed her resolve to see the proceedings through to their conclusion.
