Last updated:
Justice Swarnkant Sharma, replying to Kejriwal’s petition, said, “In the absence of any evidence of abuse by the children of a judge, such an allegation cannot even be entertained.”
Justice Swarnakanta Sharma and Arvind Kejriwal. (file)
Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma on Monday affirmed that “separation must come from law and cannot be based on fiction”, as she dismissed petitions filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal and others.
The former chief minister appeared before the judge virtually through video-conferencing and urged him to take on record his response to the written arguments filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Justice Sharma said that although the verdict was scheduled for 2:30 pm, she was “going out of her way” to accept Kejriwal’s response in the form of written submissions in the case.
‘Agni pariksha…but write without fear’: What did Justice Sharma say?
Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma top quotes: :
- “As an officer of this Court, I am aware of the fact that even if a lie is repeated a thousand times in a court of law or on social media, it does not become the truth. It remains a lie. Just because a lie is repeated a number of times, the truth does not lose its strength.”
- “Should I withdraw from this case? The question before me was whether I should recuse myself from hearing this case. My integrity and dignity were questioned. The easiest way for me was to withdraw without any hearing. But I decided to hear the application because it was not just about me, but about the entire judiciary.”
- “If this Court is asked to undergo the litmus test by an accused who has been acquitted, not acquitted… then the judge must question why the judge is being asked to undergo this litmus test… A judicial function by a judge cannot be dedicated solely to the perception of the litigant.”
- “When I started writing this judgment, there was silence in the courtroom. I felt the enormous responsibility of being a judge who took oath on the Constitution of India. I realized that my silence was being tested today. Now, it was not just about one judge, but about the fairness of the entire system.”
- “I decided that, as throughout my 34-year judicial career, I will deliver my judgment without fear and without being influenced by these allegations.”
- “This decision was difficult to write because there were contradictory statements during the hearing. On the one hand, he said he had no doubts about the honesty of the judge, but he still wanted to transfer the case to another judge. He said, ‘We are not saying that you are biased, but we fear that you may be biased.’
- “The petitioner has put the entire judiciary in the dock. Therefore, instead of running away, I chose to resolve the issue. The real strength of the judiciary is to face allegations and deliver judgment. I wrote this order without any pressure. If the judgment is in your favour, then accept it, but if it is not, then complain? When the court’s judgment is in your favour, you silently accept the judicial process. But when the same judgment goes against you or in favor of the other party, you “Suddenly start questioning the process.”
- “There are two things. One is that there is a real conflict of interest. And one is that if you include something in a project like this then there is a conflict of interest. I have dealt with that in my decision.”
- “If a politician’s wife can become a politician, if a politician’s children can become politicians. How can it be said that a judge’s children cannot enter the legal profession? It would mean taking away the fundamental rights of the judges’ family,” the judge said, adding that none of his children are linked to the excise policy case. “In the absence of any evidence that the office of the court has been abused by a judge’s children, such an allegation cannot be whispered… A litigant cannot dictate how a judge’s children or family members are to live their lives.”
- “In the opinion of this court, even if relatives of this court are in the government panel, the plaintiff has to show its influence on the present case or the decision-making power of this court. No such nexus has been shown. However, this issue needs to be addressed. Merely because a judge takes the oath of office, his family does not take an oath not to enter this profession.”
- “Allowing secession will lead the public to believe that judges are associated with a particular ideology… If this court recuses from the case it will open the doors for powerful litigants to attack the families of judges… A judicial function cannot be dedicated by a judge to the perception of only one litigant… Secession will have deep implications. Even how powerful or influential a political leader may be, he has no right to weaken or harm the institution by making insinuations against the judge without any material “Can’t be allowed to be delivered.”
- “Before concluding, I must point out that a courtroom cannot be a theater of perception…the reputation of a judge is not an asset but an institutional asset.”
- “If this rejection is allowed the judicial process will no longer be independent, but will remain vulnerable to aspersions… This Court will stand up for itself and the institution when such a need arises.”
- “Segregation should come from law, not narrative.”
- “Since this allegation has been made only by Mr Kejriwal, the response is being given only to him.”
Argument and Reply
On April 13, Kejriwal said Justice Sharma had attended the Advocates Parishad event linked to BJP, RSS four times, while the CBI, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defended the judge’s participation, saying even Supreme Court and other high court judges had attended the event organized by the “Bar Association”.
Why did Arvind Kejriwal want to remove Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma from the Delhi Liquor Policy case?
While Kejriwal insisted that the registry’s refusal to take his rejoinder on record was a “miscarriage of justice”, Justice Sharma remarked that since he was not being represented by a lawyer, the court “went out of its way” for him when last week it allowed him to file his additional affidavit, even after securing orders on the separation issue.
The judge said that as per the registry rule, any party has to seek permission from the court in person to file anything and since the present case is not “exceptional”, the same practice is being followed. She said that in law, there is no concept of filing “reply” to the written pleadings of the opposite party and she would allow it Kejrival Presenting his arguments in the form of written submissions, so that he does not feel that he has not been heard. The judge said, “You say you have respect for me. I have respect for every litigant. The rule of the court will not be changed for anyone, so I will treat this as a written plea. I am taking it on record. I am giving immunity to Mr. Kejriwal.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared in the court on behalf of CBI and opposed Kejriwal’s request to file a counter. Mehta said that anywhere in the country, the arguments are not taken on record after the court reserves the order. He also said that there is no concept of filing rejoinder to the written submission and the court should do the same as it would do for any ordinary litigant.
What did Kejriwal say?
In its latest filing, Kejrival has said that the CBI has not disputed that Justice Sharma’s children are on central government panels and they get earmarked work through the “Solicitor General-led litigation structure”. The former Delhi Chief Minister said that once these facts are accepted, the prosecution cannot be allowed to escape legal consequences and all charges leveled against him by the CBI are completely irrelevant.
Emphasizing that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader holds the Indian judiciary in the highest regard, the rejoinder claimed that the federal agency has failed to justify apprehensions of conflict of interest and bias in the case, and that its story about “institutional integrity”, “anarchist practices”, “social-media campaigns”, “intimidation” and “pressuring judges” is completely irrelevant and condemnable.
Kejriwal has alleged, “Instead of meeting the gist of the conflict of interest petition, the CBI has resorted to speculations, allegations of motives, rhetoric and scandalous allegations against the applicant, all of which are irrelevant to the limited issue arising for consideration. It is very unfortunate that the CBI is willing to bring the entire judiciary into disrepute just to get this case heard before an honorable judge.”
He has raised several objections against the judge hearing the CBI plea against discharging him in the liquor-policy case, including that he had earlier refused to grant him relief on a plea challenging his arrest and had refused to grant relief on the bail pleas of other accused, including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha.
Kejriwal also claimed that Justice Sharma had come to “strong and conclusive” findings. Former Chief Minister of Delhi It has further alleged “direct conflict of interest”, claiming that the judge’s children are central government empaneled lawyers, who get work through the Solicitor General, who are appearing in court for the CBI.
Apart from Kejriwal, AAP leaders Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak have also filed a petition to remove the judge from the post. Other respondents, including Vijay Nair and Arun Ramachandra Pillai, have also sought his recusal from the case.
On February 27, the trial court acquitted Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the Delhi liquor-policy case and said the CBI case is completely incapable of standing judicial scrutiny and is completely discredited.
With PTI inputs
April 20, 2026, 19:17 IST
read more
