New Delhi, April 20 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court's Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed a request from Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal on Monday, which sought her withdrawal from hearing the case regarding the purported Delhi Excise Policy.

In her ruling, Justice Sharma remarked that while it may have been simpler to recuse herself without addressing the application, she opted to render a decision based on the merits to uphold institutional integrity.

"As I began drafting the judgment, a hush fell over the courtroom," Justice Sharma noted, emphasizing that the matter at hand extended beyond legalities, placing both the judge and the institution itself "on trial".

Reaffirming that a judge's impartiality is presumed unless proven otherwise with substantial evidence, the Delhi High Court stated that recusal cannot be granted merely based on a litigant's "fears or personal impressions".

"A litigant should not be allowed to create circumstances that undermine the judicial process. A falsehood, regardless of how frequently it is repeated in court or on social media, does not transform into truth," Justice Sharma asserted.

In response to Kejriwal's claims, the judge indicated there was no evidence to substantiate accusations of bias, including those related to her involvement in events organized by the Adhivakta Parishad or her family members' professional activities.

"The events were non-political. Just because I was invited to speak does not warrant insinuations of political bias," Justice Sharma explained, noting that no connection had been established between her relatives’ appointment as government counsel and the current proceedings.

Addressing claims that her earlier rulings had been overturned by the Supreme Court, the judge clarified that no negative findings had been made regarding her decisions.

Referring to cases involving AAP figures, such as Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, Justice Sharma noted that relief provided by the Supreme Court did not equate to an invalidation of her reasoning.

In referencing previous cases with AAP members, including Kejriwal and Raghav Chadha, the Delhi High Court pointed out that interim relief had been granted previously with no allegations of bias raised during those instances.

"A judicial practice accepted without dispute when favorable to a party cannot be challenged when it turns against them," Justice Sharma stated.

The judge warned that accepting such recusal requests could have "significant constitutional implications" and might undermine public trust in the judiciary.

"A courtroom cannot serve as a stage for perceptions. If such requests are accepted, it would not be justice served but 'justice manipulated'," she remarked.

Labeling the allegations as "speculations and insinuations", the judge concluded that there was no evident conflict of interest or grounds sufficient for recusal.

"The recusal request arrived devoid of evidence; it was filled with insinuations and doubts regarding my integrity," Justice Sharma stated, adding that "a judge cannot relinquish judicial duties in the face of baseless allegations".

This development occurs alongside ongoing proceedings in the Delhi High Court concerning a criminal revision petition by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is contesting a trial court's order that dismissed all 23 defendants, including Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, in a corruption case associated with the now-repealed excise policy.

On March 9, a single-judge bench led by Justice Sharma issued a notice to the accused regarding the CBI's challenge to the discharge order issued by the Rouse Avenue Court. She also suspended the trial court's directive for departmental action against a CBI officer involved in the investigation, along with negative remarks directed at the agency.

The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court also declined a request from Kejriwal to shift the CBI's revision petition concerning the excise policy case from Justice Sharma's bench.

In a message to Kejriwal, the Registrar General indicated that Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, as the roster master, found no basis for reallocating the case to another bench.

"The petition is assigned to the Hon’ble judge according to the current roster. Any recusal must be determined by the Hon’ble judge. I do not see any justification to transfer the petition administratively," the communication stated.

In his March 11 request, Kejriwal expressed concern that if the case remained with Justice Sharma, it "may not receive a hearing characterized by impartiality and neutrality".