In a latest development, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court refused to step aside (recuse herself) from hearing the CBI’s appeal in the Delhi liquor policy case. She rejected recusal requests made by Arvind Kejriwal and other accused persons, including Manish Sisodia, K Kavitha, Vinay Nair and others.

She said that just because her children are empanelled as central government counsel, it cannot be assumed that she is biased against Kejriwal. She also said that a politician cannot question a judge’s ability to decide cases. She stated:

“The competence of a judge is decided by the higher court, not the litigant… a politician cannot be permitted to cross the boundary and cannot judge judicial competence… A litigant may not always be successful and only higher court can determine whether judgment is contrary or one sided. A judgment of district court can be upheld by HC and same thing for HC which will be seen by SC. General unease of litigant that this court may not grant relief, that can’t be a ground to alleged bias against the judge.”

On the issue of her children being linked to government panels, she said there is no link shown between that and the case. She said:

“Even if relatives are empaneled on govt panels, the litigant has to show relevance and impact on this case. No such nexus has been shown. Their empaneled or relationship has no connection with this dispute… the recusal file did not come with any evidence but contained aspersions, insinuations and doubts casted on her integrity and impartiality.”

She further said:

“A litigant can’t dictate how children of judge have to live their lives, in absence of any proof that office of judge was misused… Relatives of this court have no connection with this dispute. They have no proximity to the lis… if such allegation is accepted, then the court will not be able to hear any matter in which Union of India is a party… Such insinuation is not only unfounded but also overlooks judicial office and integrity attached to it.”

On social media criticism and claims of political bias, she said she does not get influenced by such claims. She said:

“This court having served as judge for nearly 34 years is adequately trained to pay any heed to whatever is said on social media… In this case, something has been portrayed that does not exist. A litigant cannot be permitted to create a situation that lowers the judicial process… It cant be assumed from remote circumstances. It must rest on tangible materials with clear connection with lis. A lie even if repeated thousand times in court or social media doesnt become a truth. Truth doesn’t lose its strength merely because falsehood is repeated.”

She also rejected claims linked to her participation in Adhivakta Parishad events and statements made by Union Minister Amit Shah. She said that a judge is always assumed to be impartial, and this cannot be questioned just because of political opinions or personal doubts or fears.

Case Details :CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors

CRL.REV.P.-134/2026