A recusal test the Delhi High Court failed

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court refused to recuse herself from hearing the Delhi liquor policy case — Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Kuldeep Singh and Ors. (April 20, 2026) — involving the former Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, and others. This episode marks an unfortunate deviation from India’s jurisprudence on judicial recusal.

Mr. Kejriwal argued the recusal plea by appearing as party in person in the High Court. He submitted that the judge should not hear the Central Bureau of Investigation’s plea against the discharge of the accused, including himself, in the excise policy case, as ordered by the trial court. The prominent grounds cited in his plea included adverse findings by the judge in earlier proceedings in the same case; the judge’s alleged ideological proclivity, as reflected in her attendance at events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, or ABAP (a lawyers’ organisation inclined towards the political philosophy of the ruling regime at the Centre); the fact that the judge’s children were working as panel advocates under the Centre/government, with case files to be allotted by the Solicitor General, who, incidentally, was representing the opposing side in the case; and a statement by Home Minister Amit Shah implying that Mr. Kejriwal would lose the case in the High Court. Because of these factors, he contended that he reasonably apprehended bias in the process of adjudication.