Delhi High Court Refuses Recusal in Liquor Policy Case: Strong Message on Judicial Independence

Introduction

In a significant order with wide institutional implications, the Delhi High Court has emphatically reaffirmed that recusal of a Judge must be founded on law, not on perception, pressure or political narrative. In CBI vs Kuldeep Singh & Ors in CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 & CRL.M.A. 6853/2026, Neutral Citation No.: 2026:DHC:3291, a Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Dr Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma declined an application filed by Arvind Kejriwal and other accused seeking her recusal from the Delhi Excise Policy (liquor policy) case.

The judgment, reserved on 13.04.2026 and pronounced on 20.04.2026, is not merely about one recusal plea. It is a detailed reflection on:

  • The limits of litigants’ rights to question a Judge’s neutrality,
  • The standards governing recusal in Indian jurisprudence, and
  • The institutional duty of courts not to surrender to pressure, especially from politically powerful persons.

The Court categorically held that:

  • The mere fact that the Judge’s children are empanelled as Central Government panel counsel does not create any conflict of interest or bias in a criminal matter involving a political figure; and
  • Politicians and litigants cannot be allowed to “judge judicial competence” or convert recusal into a device for forum shopping.

The main criminal revision matter has now been listed on April 29 and 30, 2026, for submissions by the CBI, with the respondents to be heard thereafter.

The Core Question: “Should I Recuse?”

Judge’s Duty Versus Personal Ease

At the very beginning of the judgment, Hon’ble Dr Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma records an introspective moment: once arguments ended and the courtroom fell silent, a single question remained – whether she ought to recuse.

She notes that:

  • Recusal in this case was not about a complex point of law or fact,
  • Instead, it was about adjudicating an application against herself,
  • Although recusal applications are not uncommon, this one was of a kind where the institution itself was effectively under scrutiny, not just an individual Judge.

The Judge candidly acknowledges that the easier course would have been to quietly step aside without even entertaining the application. However, she chooses the harder path – to decide the recusal plea on the basis of established recusal jurisprudence, fully conscious that:

  • This order could be cited as a precedent,
  • It could impact not only her colleagues in the Delhi High Court and District Judiciary, but potentially Judges across the country, and
  • A wrong signal could encourage similar tactics in future cases.

Silence of Judges Versus Integrity of the Institution

The judgment highlights a critical institutional dilemma:

  • Judges traditionally “speak” only through their orders and judgments,
  • They are trained to remain silent in the face of criticism and simply apply the law,
  • Yet, when allegations are made directly attacking their impartiality and dignity, total silence may end up damaging the institution, if it is perceived as tacit acceptance.

Therefore, the Court decides to address each allegation head-on, not as a matter of personal defence, but to protect the collective integrity of the judiciary.

Applicants’ Stand: Respect, Yet “Apprehension of Bias”

Conflicting Positions by the Applicants

The Court notes a striking inconsistency in the stance of the applicants, including Arvind Kejriwal:

  • On one hand, they expressly stated that they had full respect for the Court, did not doubt the Judge’s integrity or fairness;
  • On the other, they insisted the case should be transferred because they had an “apprehension of bias”.

This duality is central: the Judge is not accused of actual bias, but of a perceived possibility of bias, based largely on an earlier order dated 09.03.2026 and on the professional engagement of her family members as Central Government panel counsel.

The Court makes it clear that the issue is no longer about the merits of the criminal case, but about judging the Judge and, by extension, testing the resilience of the judicial institution.

Earlier Order of 09.03.2026: Can an Adverse Order Justify Recusal?

Challenge to Prior Judicial Order as Ground of Recusal

One of the principal grounds advanced by Arvind Kejriwal was that the order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the same Bench created an apprehension that he would not receive justice from this Court.

The Court firmly rejects this line of reasoning and relies on settled law.

Reference to Supreme Court Precedent

The Bench refers to Neelam Manmohan Attavar v. Manmohan Attavar: (2021) 3 SCC 727, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: