Delhi HC Judge Refuses Recusal in Excise Policy Case — Implications for Judicial Impartiality

Recusal of Judges – Overview On 20 April 2026 , Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court rejected a petition filed by former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and five others seeking her recusal . The applications were dismissed on the ground that they lacked concrete evidence and were based merely on "aspersions, insinuations and doubts". Key Developments Judges may withdraw when a conflict of interest exists, e.g., shareholding in a litigant company or prior personal association. The principle stems from the doctrine of natural justice , particularly the maxim Nemo Judex In Causa Sua . There are no statutory rules governing recusal; the decision rests on the judge's conscience and discretion, though Supreme Court judgments provide guidance. If a judge recuses, the case is re‑listed before the Chief Justice for allocation to a fresh bench. Important Facts 1. The Supreme Court in Ranjit Thakur v Union of India (1987) held that bias must be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable observer, not the judge’s self‑assessment. 2. The 1999 "Restatement of Values in Judicial Life" (a code of ethics adopted by the Supreme Court) states that a judge should not hear a case where he holds shares unless he discloses the interest and no objection is raised. 3. In 2015, the Supreme Court, while striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission, emphasized the need for judges to give reasons for recusal to promote transparency. UPS​C Relevance Understanding judicial recusal is vital for GS 2 (Polity) as it reflects the independence of the judiciary, a cornerstone of the Constitution. It also ties into GS 4 (Ethics & Integrity) by illustrating the ethical standards expected of public functionaries. The principle of natural justice is frequently asked in ethics papers, especially the twin pillars Nemo Judex In Causa Sua and Audi Alteram Partem . Way Forward Given the absence of codified procedures, the UPSC aspirant should monitor ongoing debates about formalising recusal rules. A clear statutory framework would enhance transparency and reduce ad‑hoc decisions. Meanwhile, candidates should internalise the underlying principles—impartiality, fairness, and the duty to avoid even the appearance of bias—to answer questions on judicial ethics and constitutional safeguards. Anticipatory Bail – A Quick Note While the primary focus is recusal, the article also touches on anticipatory bail . Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) , only the Sessions Court and High Court can grant such bail, reinforcing the protection of personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution."