A very disturbing video clip is being shared on social media in which a woman is heard addressing a meeting purportedly organised by an affiliate of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
The woman can be heard stating that when she was first invited by the organisation, she was a junior magistrate. Subsequently, when she was invited, she was a family court judge, and the next time she was invited, she was a district and sessions judge.
Even as the gathering clapped and cheered her, she said that this time she has come as a High Court judge and asked the organisers to keep inviting her so that she can come as a judge of the Supreme Court next time.
Viral Video Raises Questions on Judicial Conduct
The High Court judge addressing the meeting was none other than Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who earlier this week rejected former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking her recusal from hearing the CBI’s excise policy case.
Neither she, nor anyone else, has so far claimed that the video was fake or that someone else was speaking in the video.
Kejriwal had alleged bias, saying Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had been attending events organised by Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, which is linked to the BJP and the RSS.
Seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal, citing past instances of alleged bias, Kejriwal and five other accused persons pointed to the judge’s alleged likelihood of ideological association with ABAP.
CBI Response and Legal Arguments
Opposing the recusal applications, the Central Bureau of Investigation, in its affidavit, said, “Attending a legal seminar can never be a ground for recusal when the topic of the seminar was not a political one; therefore, it does not demonstrate any ideological association.”
It termed such unscrupulous and sweeping aspersions to attribute bias to the judge as contemptuous.
The CBI, represented by Tushar Mehta, defended the judge’s participation, submitting that even sitting Supreme Court and other High Court judges had attended the event organised by the bar association and there was nothing wrong with it.
This plea, however, does not justify the gratitude expressed by the judge that she gets elevated each time she is invited by the organisation.
Kejriwal should not have blurred the line between legal argument and theatrics.
Kejriwal, who in an unusual move appeared in person before her court to seek her recusal, had also filed an additional affidavit stating that the son and daughter of Justice Sharma are empanelled as Central government counsel.
The former Chief Minister submitted that they received work assignments from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the CBI in proceedings before Justice Sharma. He argued that a reasonable apprehension of bias arises because of these facts.
Contesting his claim, the CBI submitted that if Kejriwal’s reasons for requesting recusal are to be accepted, all learned judges throughout the country would be disqualified from hearing matters pertaining to such governments or matters of any political leader, small or big, if their relatives are on the government panel of the Central or state government.
Recusal Debate and Judicial Integrity
While rejecting Kejriwal’s plea seeking her recusal from hearing the case, Justice Sharma said, “If I were to accept these recusal applications, it would set a troubling precedent.”
She also said that every unproven and unfounded accusation of bias or partiality is not merely put on an individual judge but also casts aspersions on the collective integrity of the institution of the judiciary itself.
“This court will decide when duty demands that such a case is to be decided even if inconvenient, and will not yield or retreat where doing so would erode the credibility of the institution itself,” Justice Sharma added.
While Kejriwal appearing in court in person to seek the judge’s recusal, and thereby indulging in theatrics, was not in good taste, the judge should have recused herself if she thought the petitioner had expressed a lack of confidence in her.
As is often quoted, a judge, like Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion.
This article was originally published in Punjab Today News and can be read here.
“This article by Vipin Pubbi highlights how the recusal row has sparked a significant debate on judicial integrity. It thoughtfully presents multiple perspectives, raising important concerns about transparency, accountability, and public confidence in the judiciary.”