Like US President Donald Trump, two Indian leaders — Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal — in recent years have challenged constitutional institutions such as the Election Commission, Parliament, and the judiciary, thereby raising serious questions about their credibility. While campaigning against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, his government, and party, they are now alleging bias and prejudice not only in the actions of the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), but also against senior members of the judiciary. In effect, they appear to be telling the public and the world that even the judiciary should not be trusted. This is an extremely dangerous campaign. Former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal recently appeared in person before the Delhi High Court instead of being represented by counsel and argued against a judge, drawing significant publicity. Had an ordinary lawyer appeared on his behalf, such arguments would likely not have received similar attention. Kejriwal presented arguments before Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma seeking her recusal from hearing matters related to the liquor policy case. He raised several objections against the judge, including that she had earlier declined to grant him relief in a petition challenging his arrest, and had also denied relief to co-accused such as Manish Sisodia and K. Kavitha, while making what he described as “strong and conclusive” observations.
Subsequently, Kejriwal filed an additional affidavit in the Delhi High Court in connection with the CBI’s revision petition challenging his discharge in the matter. In this fresh application, he expressed apprehension of conflict-of-interest involving Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, stating that both her son and daughter had been appointed as legal advisors to the central government, which, through the CBI, is a party to the case. He also highlighted the political sensitivity of the matter, noting that he is a prominent opposition leader being investigated by a central agency. Referring to past Supreme Court remarks about investigative agencies, he invoked the phrase “caged parrot” to stress the importance of both actual impartiality and the appearance of impartiality. His argument rests on the legal principle that even a reasonable apprehension of bias can be sufficient grounds for recusal. He asserted that “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.”
However, a question arises. Under established conventions, judges have often recused themselves in cases where they had prior associations with a matter or individual. But if, like an influential figure such as Kejriwal, any ordinary litigant were to seek adjournments or delay judgments by questioning a judge’s caste, religion, or other personal factors, what would the court be expected to entertain? In fact, making such allegations after a verdict could even invite punishment for contempt of court.
The CBI opposed Kejriwal’s request for recusal, arguing that such reasoning would render many judges ineligible to hear government-related matters. The agency’s counsel told the Delhi High Court that such claims are legally untenable and could disrupt the entire judicial system. Indeed, every judge appointed to the courts has a personal history — from student life to family background. Their parents, siblings, spouses, or friends may be associated with various professions, institutions, businesses, or political organizations. High Court judges are appointed after long legal careers during which they may have attended public functions of various bodies. Over the past several decades, some senior judges have had prior political affiliations, served as councillors, MLAs, or MPs, or even entered politics after retirement. Can all their decisions, past or present, be dismissed as politically biased?
In Indian democracy, the judiciary is regarded as the guardian of the Constitution. Yet questions have periodically arisen about whether it has remained entirely insulated from politics. Over the past 70 years, there have been instances where judges had direct or indirect political associations. While the judiciary has often demonstrated its independence, such linkages have repeatedly prompted debate. During the Emergency, political influence over the judiciary became evident. Justice A.N. Ray was appointed Chief Justice superseding seniority. Justice Baharul Islam first served as a Congress MP, later became a judge, and subsequently returned to politics — a unique and controversial episode in judicial history. Justice Vijender Jain, who had earlier been associated with the Congress and served as a municipal councillor in Delhi, later became a judge of the Delhi High Court and delivered significant judgments.
In recent years as well, some retired senior judges have gone on to become MPs or Governors. After controversies over judicial appointments, the executive’s role was curtailed and the collegium system introduced. Yet even then, allegations of nepotism and favoritism emerged from within the legal fraternity. If accused individuals themselves begin determining which judge should hear their case, what would remain of the justice system?
During the hearing, Kejriwal also pointed to Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma’s alleged ideological proximity to the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), considered affiliated with the RSS. He cited data suggesting that of criminal cases involving MPs and MLAs being heard in her court, only two — one involving himself and another involving a BJP political rival — were being expedited. He further referred to social media posts to support his apprehension of bias, stating that he was “gravely prejudiced” by perceived conflicts of interest indicated therein.
On the other hand, information available on the Delhi High Court website indicates that Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, with over three decades of judicial experience, completed her BA (Honours) in English Literature from Delhi University, where she was adjudged the Best All-Round Student at Daulat Ram College. She obtained her LLB in 1991 and LLM in 2004, and also holds diplomas in Marketing Management, Advertising, and Public Relations. Before her elevation to the Delhi High Court in March 2022, she served as Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (CBI) at Rouse Avenue Courts, and earlier as Principal District and Sessions Judge (North District). Last year, she was awarded a PhD for her doctoral thesis on judicial education in comparative constitutional systems.
An accomplished student active in debates and extracurricular activities, she joined the judiciary as a magistrate at 24 and became a sessions judge at 35. Justice Sharma has authored several books, including Don’t Break After Break-Up, Beyond Baghban, Tumhari Sakhi, Love Full Circle, and Judicial Education – Achieving the Constitutional Vision of Justice. Given such academic and judicial credentials, are allegations of bias against such a judge justified — particularly when investigations and court proceedings in the liquor policy case against Kejriwal continue on the basis of serious evidentiary material? These are questions that merit sober reflection.
