"Clear message that judiciary's independence is non-negotiable": Rekha Gupta on Kejriwal's recusal plea dismissal

Kejriwal had filed a plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta in the excise policy case Sharma, alleging a perceived conflict of interest arising from the empanelment of the judge's children as Central Government counsel and argued that this creates a reasonable apprehension of bias.

In a post on X, Rekha Gupta accused Kejriwal of "undermining the sanctity of democratic institutions", risking the public confidence on judiciary with his "inappropriate" allegations.

"Today's judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, on the plea filed by AAP leader Sh. Arvind Kejriwal, seeking recusal of the learned judge, sends a clear and unequivocal message that the independence, impartiality and dignity of the judiciary are non-negotiable," she said.

"The attempt by Kejriwal to cast aspersions on the judicial process and question the impartiality of a sitting High Court judge is not only inappropriate but also deeply undermines the sanctity of democratic institutions. When individuals who have held high public office resort to such conduct, it risks eroding public confidence in the justice delivery system," she added.

Rekha Gupta thrashed Kejriwal for "the double standards" over selectively accepting the judicial orders, asserting that "justice cannot be shaped by perception".

"It is equally unfortunate to witness a recurring pattern where judicial orders are selectively accepted when convenient and questioned when not. Such double standards have no place in a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law. The Hon'ble Court has rightly underscored that no individual, regardless of position or influence, is above the judicial process. Justice cannot be shaped by perception, nor can truth be altered through rhetoric or public discourse," she said.

The Delhi High Court dismissed Kejriwal's plea, holding that the allegations were based on conjecture and failed to meet the legal standard of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Leading with sharp observations, the Court emphasised that "the courtroom cannot become a theatre of perception" and cautioned that even a powerful political figure cannot be permitted to cast aspersions on a sitting judge without material evidence. It held that the same standard of fairness applies when allegations are made against the judiciary and warned that entertaining such pleas would erode institutional credibility.

Justice Sharma noted that the applicants' case was built on "insinuations and aspersions" rather than proof, and that accepting such arguments would set a dangerous precedent. The Court observed that a judge cannot be asked to recuse merely because a litigant apprehends an unfavourable outcome, stating that "justice cannot be managed through perception." (ANI)