A Delhi High Court judge refused to recuse herself from the excise-policy case involving Arvind Kejriwal and transferred the matter to another bench.
This development creates a legal standoff between the judiciary and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leadership, potentially delaying proceedings in the high-profile liquor policy investigation.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the recusal applications on Monday [1]. The judge said that the request for her to step down was unfounded. To maintain judicial discipline, she ordered that the case be heard by a different bench [2].
Arvind Kejriwal, the chief minister of Delhi and leader of the AAP, responded to the court's decision. He said that his legal team would not participate in proceedings under the current circumstances.
"We will not appear before Justice Sharma in this case," Kejriwal said [3].
The judge's decision to transfer the case rather than simply recusing herself is a distinct procedural move. Justice Sharma said that "another bench will hear the case" [2].
Political reactions to the clash were immediate. Bansuri Swaraj, a leader with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), commented on the chief minister's behavior following the ruling.
"Arvind Kejriwal is a bully," Swaraj said [3].
The excise-policy case continues to be a focal point of legal and political tension in New Delhi, as the court navigates requests for judicial neutrality while maintaining the pace of the trial.
“"We will not appear before Justice Sharma in this case."”
The refusal of Justice Sharma to recuse herself, while simultaneously transferring the case, represents a rejection of the defense's attempt to remove her from the process on their terms. By citing judicial discipline, the court is asserting its authority over the assignment of judges, while Kejriwal's refusal to appear suggests a strategy of challenging the court's legitimacy to gain political leverage or delay the trial.
