Delhi HC Justice Sharma recuses from Karti Chidambaram's Diageo-CBI case
Synopsis
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has now recused from two separate cases involving Congress MP Karti Chidambaram, while simultaneously refusing to step back from the high-profile Delhi excise policy matter involving Kejriwal and Sisodia — a pattern that raises pointed questions about judicial consistency and the optics of selective recusal in politically sensitive litigation.
Key Takeaways
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recused herself from Karti Chidambaram's plea seeking quashing of a CBI FIR linked to Diageo Scotland on Tuesday, 29 April 2025 .
The CBI FIR , registered on 1 January 2025 , alleges Chidambaram influenced public servants to benefit Diageo Scotland ; the alleged conduct spans 2004–2010 .
Chidambaram argues no bribe was demanded or accepted, and the ~20-year delay in FIR registration is unexplained.
Justice Sharma had earlier also recused from Chidambaram's plea in the Chinese visa scam case, where charges were framed on 23 December 2025 .
She continues to hear the Delhi excise policy CBI revision petition despite recusal requests from both Kejriwal and Sisodia .
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday, 29 April 2025, recused herself from hearing a plea filed by Congress MP Karti P. Chidambaram seeking the quashing of a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) corruption case linked to alleged bribery involving Diageo Scotland. The matter will now be placed before another Bench, subject to the orders of the Chief Justice as master of the roster.
Background of the CBI Case
The CBI registered an FIR on 1 January 2025, accusing Chidambaram of allegedly influencing public servants to secure relief for Diageo Scotland over a ban on the duty-free sale of its whisky. The allegations pertain to a period stretching from 2004 to 2010, making the gap between the alleged conduct and the FIR registration nearly two decades.
In his petition, Chidambaram has contended that he was never summoned during the preliminary enquiry and was denied an opportunity to present his position before the FIR was formally lodged. He has further argued that there is no allegation that he either demanded or accepted any bribe or illegal gratification, and that offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are therefore not made out against him.
A Pattern of Recusals Involving Chidambaram
This is not the first instance of Justice Sharma stepping away from a matter involving the Congress MP. Earlier, she had also recused herself from hearing his plea challenging a trial court order that framed charges against him in the alleged Chinese visa scam case.
In that matter, Chidambaram has challenged the 23 December 2025 order of a special CBI court, which framed charges of criminal conspiracy and bribing a public servant over alleged irregularities in the issuance of visas to Chinese nationals in 2011. According to the CBI, approximately 250 Chinese workers were allegedly granted project visas for a Punjab-based power project in violation of Ministry of Home Affairs norms.
Other Recent Recusals by Justice Sharma
Beyond the Chidambaram matters, Justice Sharma recently recused herself from hearing the bail plea of former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Naresh Balyan in a case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). Balyan was rearrested by the Delhi Police Crime Branch in December 2024 under MCOCA shortly after securing bail in an extortion case, and faces allegations of links to organised crime syndicates involved in extortion and arms trafficking.
The Excise Policy Case: A Different Stance
Notably, Justice Sharma has taken a contrasting position in the Delhi excise policy corruption matter. She continues to hear a pending criminal revision petition filed by the CBI challenging a trial court order that discharged all 23 accused — including former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia — in the corruption case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy.
Both Kejriwal and Sisodia have sought her recusal from the excise matter. Justice Sharma rejected Kejriwal's recusal request, observing that while the
Point of View
Set against her decision to continue hearing the excise policy case despite identical demands from Kejriwal and Sisodia, invite scrutiny. Judicial recusal norms in India remain largely uncodified, leaving the decision to individual conscience — a standard that, however well-intentioned, can appear inconsistent when applied differently across politically charged cases involving the same opposition ecosystem. The broader issue is institutional: without a transparent recusal protocol, each such episode feeds the perception of selectivity, regardless of the actual reasoning. The Supreme Court's long-pending exercise on codifying recusal standards has never been more relevant.
NationPress
9 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recuse from Karti Chidambaram's case?
Justice Sharma declined to hear the matter without stating reasons on record, as is standard practice in recusal. The case will now be listed before another Bench of the Delhi High Court as directed by the Chief Justice.
What is the CBI case against Karti Chidambaram involving Diageo Scotland?
The CBI registered an FIR on 1 January 2025 alleging that Karti Chidambaram influenced public servants to provide relief to Diageo Scotland over a ban on duty-free whisky sales. The alleged conduct pertains to the period between 2004 and 2010.
What are Karti Chidambaram's main arguments for quashing the FIR?
Chidambaram argues that he was not called during the preliminary enquiry, that there is no allegation of him demanding or accepting a bribe, and that the FIR was filed with an unexplained delay of nearly two decades after the alleged conduct.
Has Justice Sharma recused from other cases involving Chidambaram?
Yes. Justice Sharma had previously recused from Chidambaram's plea challenging the framing of charges in the Chinese visa scam case, where a special CBI court framed charges on 23 December 2025 for alleged visa irregularities involving around 250 Chinese workers.
Why is Justice Sharma continuing to hear the Delhi excise policy case despite recusal requests?
Justice Sharma rejected Kejriwal's recusal request, stating she chose to decide it on merits in the interest of institutional integrity rather than take what she called the 'easier path' of stepping aside. Both Kejriwal and Sisodia subsequently said they would not participate in those proceedings.
