A recusal test the Delhi High Court failed, Pg6

Key Highlights:

• Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court refused to recuse herself from hearing the Delhi liquor policy case involving Arvind Kejriwal and others on April 20, 2026.
• Kejriwal argued for recusal based on adverse findings, alleged ideological proclivity, family connections, and a statement by Home Minister Amit Shah.
• The law on recusal in India is not codified but based on precedents and ethical considerations.
• The High Court's decision deviates from established jurisprudence on judicial recusal.

Detailed Insights:

• The case highlights the importance of judges adhering to the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, which emphasize independence, impartiality, and integrity.
• Recusal is considered appropriate when a litigant reasonably believes a judge should not hear their case, to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.
• The Supreme Court has generally rejected the "duty to sit doctrine," emphasizing that even the appearance of bias is sufficient to warrant recusal.
• The challenge for a judge is to overcome subjectivity when deciding on their own recusal, ensuring fairness and the appearance of fairness.
• The Delhi High Court's judgment has been criticized for being self-defensive and substituting the apprehension of bias with a requirement to demonstrate actual bias.
• The grounds raised by Kejriwal required a more objective assessment, especially in a case with serious political ramifications.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Judicial Recusal: The act of a judge voluntarily abstaining from hearing a case due to a conflict of interest or appearance of bias.
• Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct: A set of ethical principles designed to guide the conduct of judges and ensure judicial integrity.
• Doctrine of Necessity: An exception to the recusal rule, allowing a judge to hear a case if no other judge is available or competent to do so.