What is Judicial Recusal? Kejriwal vs Delhi HC Explained | Excise Case Twist

Added: 2026-05-11

[00:00:08]Greetings everyone. Welcome to Rahul's IAS. Today, we will be delving briefly into judicial recusal which took a sharp turn as question around recusal came into focus in the CBI liquor excise policy case involving Arvind Kejriwal.

[00:00:25]Can a judge refuse to step aside from a case? What really counts as a conflict of interest? And how does recusal work in India?

[00:00:34]These questions came into focus after a Delhi High Court judge declined to recuse herself from hearing the liquor excise policy case involving Arvind Kejriwal and others. Noting that the request was based on allegations rather than evidence, Mr. Kejriwal, who argued his application in person, relied on reasonable apprehension of bias and conflict of interest standards in his plea for the judge to step aside from the hearing of the Central Bureau of Investigations appeal against a trial court order discharging him and others.

[00:01:12]Honorable Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma is hearing the revision petitions filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the trial court's order discharging Kejriwal and all other accused in the alleged liquor policy corruption case.

[00:01:29]As part of the other arguments about bias, Mr. Kejriwal pointed to the judge's attendance at events organized by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad on different occasions and also alleged bias on the ground that her children are central government panel counsel.

[00:01:49]Mr. Kejriwal also argued that the trial court's discharge order issued after more than 3 months of hearings, was dismissed as prima facie erroneous within just 5 minutes of hearing.

[00:02:03]So, what does it mean for a judge to recuse?

[00:02:07]According to Black's Law Dictionary, recusal is removal of oneself as a judge in a particular matter, specially because of a conflict of interest. The idea goes back to the 1924 British case of R versus Sussex, wherein it was observed, "It is not merely of some importance, but it is of fundamental importance [clears throat] that that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."

[00:02:37]Building the Indian doctrine of recusal, the Supreme Court has drawn on the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule against bias, that no man should be a judge in his own cause. Judges in India are also guided by the restatement of values of judicial life, adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997, which emphasizes the perception of fairness.

[00:03:00]There has been emergence of two types of recusal, self-recusal and recusal on request. Self-recusal refers to a judge voluntarily stepping aside on discovering a link such as past representation, family connection, or pecuniary interest. In the case of requested recusal, the apprehension of bias in the mind of the litigant and the judge's discretion are paramount.

[00:03:25]India has no express law on recusal, and the constitution too is silent. Instead, it rests on precedent, the discretion of individual judges, and self-discipline.

[00:03:38]Recusal is not to be forced by a litigant, but it is for the judge to decide. It should not lead to bench hunting and taming the judiciary. In a seminal case on recusal in Ranjit Thakur versus Union of India, 1987, The Supreme Court held that the relevant test is whether a reasonable person in possession of the relevant facts would apprehend likelihood of bias. The emphasis is that it is a matter of judge's discretion, which is the step towards impartial adjudication.

[00:04:11]Now, coming back to the case in question. Honorable Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma in this seminal case rejected the plea of recusal and relied on a powerful quote by Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, former judge of Supreme Court of Canada, that judges are expected to bring to the bench an open mind and not an empty one. The court hearing observed that judicial integrity cannot be put to trial by litigant and the rules of natural justice must apply equally when a judge is judging a litigant and when a litigant seeks to judge a judge.

[00:04:48]Reasonable apprehension of bias, therefore, cannot be based on imagination and personal perceptions of a litigant who is guided by his own concerns or interests. To conclude, mere unease is wholly insufficient for a judge to recuse. Allegations of even perceived bias must have some connection with reality. Suspicion without substance and apprehension without foundation cannot become grounds to seek recusal of a judge. Thus, accepting the present applications would mean giving credence to an attempt to cast a shadow of doubt on the fairness of a judge without any material and then insisting that that such a shadow alone is sufficient for the judge to recuse from the case.

[00:05:39]Recently, after this judgment, Mr. Arvind Kejriwal has written a letter to Honorable Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma stating that he will no longer take part in the CBI liquor policy case proceedings before her citing a lack of confidence in fairness.

[00:05:55]He framed his decision as an act of Satyagraha invoking the principles of Mahatma Gandhi. Later Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak also decided to not take part in the hearing.

[00:06:08]The honorable Delhi High Court decided to appoint three senior advocates as amicus curiae to represent them as they boycott CBI's excise policy challenge. That's all for today.

[00:06:21]Thank you for watching.