Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court on Monday rejected the plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking her recusal from the Delhi Excise Policy case.

In a strongly worded judgment, Justice Sharma rejected allegations of bias on her part.

Below are the ten grounds, among others, on which she rejected the plea seeking her recusal.

1. Presumption of impartiality

Justice Sharma said that there is a presumption of impartiality of a judge and that presumption has to be rebutted by the litigant seeking recusal of a judge. However, the personal apprehension of the applicants has not been able to pass the threshold test of reasonable apprehension of bias, the judgment said.

2. On attending RSS wing's event

On the allegation that she attended events organised by Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), which is affiliated to RSS, she said that the same were not political events.

"They were programmes on new criminal laws and the women's day events or to interact with younger members of the bar. Many judges have been participating in those events. Such participation cannot be used to insinuate ideological bias," she stated.

The relationship between the Bar and the Bench is not confined to courtrooms, the judge underscored.

3. On her children being part of Central government panel counsel

Regarding the contention that there would be conflict of interest in her hearing the case, she said that a clear nexus has to be shown that the judge's decision will be affected by the relationship.

"Even if the relatives of this Court are on the government panel, the litigant has to show the impact of that on the present case or the decision-making power of this Court. No such nexus has been shown," she said.

She further held that children of judges cannot be stopped from practicing law since that would amount to taking away their fundamental rights.

"If the wife of a politician can become a politician, if the children of a politician can become politicians. How can it be said that the children of a judge can't enter the profession of law? This would mean taking away the fundamental rights of a family of judges."

None of her children have been associated with the Excise Policy case, she added.

4. Orders favouring Kejriwal not highlighted

She then referred to certain examples of Kejriwal being granted ex-parte relief by her. However, he never raised any allegation of bias then since the orders were in his favour, the Court said.

"People belonging to Arvind Kejriwal's party did not argue that no interim order should be passed in their favour. There are several other cases pending before this Court, including the leaders belonging to Arvind Kejriwal's party. Many such orders have been continued by this Court and this judge but not allegations were raised then because perhaps the order was in their favour."

5. Supreme Court did not set aside her orders

Justice Sharma also highlighted that the Supreme Court had tested her orders but had not made any adverse observations against the same.

"He (AAP MP Sanjay Singh) was granted bail (by Supreme Court) on a concession made by ED and no comments were made on my order. Similarly, in Manish Sisodia case, no findings or observations were made (by Supreme Court) on the orders passed by this Court."

6. On Home Minister Amit Shah's statement

On Kejriwal's submission about Home Minister Amit Shah's statement that a plea has been filed before High Court against the discharge of the accused in the Excise Policy case, Justice Sharma said,

"Seeking recusal on such a ground would amount to proceeding purely on imagination. This Court has no control on what a politician may choose to state in the public domain. It equally cannot regulate statements made by politicians."

7. No evidence, only insinuations

She further said that the plea seeking her recusal was not filed with evidence but with "insinuations".

"I must add that the file seeking recusal did not arrive with evidence; it arrived on my table with aspersions, insinuations and doubts cast on my integrity, fairness and impartiality," she said.

8. Recusal will create impression of political bias

The judge said that her recusal would lead the public believing that judges are aligned to a particular political party or ideology. It would carry deeper constitutional ramifications and will affect the credibility of the institution, she added.

"The narratives in applications were based on conjecture. If I were to accept them, it would create a troubling precedent. I have decided fearlessly all questions before me. This court cannot be weighed down by the allegations and insinuations. This court will not yield or retreat when doing so will affect the credibility of the institution itself. It will not be justice administered but justice managed."

9. Media-driven narrative, win-win situation for Kejriwal

The Court said that Kejriwal has created a win-win situation for himself.

"If he does not get the relief, he will say that he had already predicted the outcome. If he gets the relief, he can say the Court acted under pressure. The litigant may portray the situation whichever way it suits his narrative," Justice Sharma said.

10. Cannot abdicate duty

Recusal would not be prudence but abdication of duty and would be an act of surrender, Justice Sharma said.

"This court cannot be weighed down by the allegations and insinuations. This court will not yield or retreat when doing so will affect the credibility of the institution itself. It will not be justice administered but justice managed."