Court Slams Kejriwal’s Plea to Change Judge: The court has made a strict comment on Kejriwal’s plea to change the judge in the Delhi Excise case. Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma said that questions on impartiality affect the dignity of the judiciary and such allegations without basis are not true.
Once again a heated debate was seen inside the court in a matter related to Delhi’s excise policy. This time the issue was more about the questions raised on the impartiality of the judiciary than the merit of the case. While hearing the petition filed by Arvind Kejriwal demanding change of judge, the court gave a clear message that this is not just a case, but a matter related to the credibility of the institution.
“Questions not just on me, but on the entire judiciary.”
While giving the verdict on the application, Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma said that questions have been raised on his impartiality in this matter. She mentioned in her order that there was silence in the court room when she was writing the judgment and she felt deeply aware of her constitutional responsibility. He said that this is not only a test of a judge, but also a test of the impartiality and dignity of the judiciary. Such allegations affect the trust of the institution.
Also read: Plane Crash: Private plane crash in the forests of Chhattisgarh, information about pilot-crew member not yet available…
“The decision of the Superior Court does not raise questions on the judge.”
The court clarified that cancellation of the order by the High Court in a case cannot be the basis for saying that the concerned judge is not qualified to hear that case. Justice Sharma said that in Kejriwal’s arrest case, only the issue of need for arrest was referred to a larger bench and interim relief was granted. The order of the lower court was not completely set aside, hence it is not appropriate to demand change of judge on this basis.
“Can’t recuse from hearing on the basis of political statements”
The court also said that alleging bias against the judge on the basis of public statement of a leader is completely based on imagination. Referring to Amit Shah’s statement, the court said that the court has no control over what any leader says on a public platform. The judicial process cannot be influenced on the basis of such statements.
“The plaintiff challenged the institution”
Justice Sharma said in his order that this case is not just about individual allegations but is like challenging the institution of judiciary. He said that in his 34 years of judicial experience, he has always given decisions without being influenced by any pressure or allegation and the same principle was adopted in this case also.
“When the decision was in favor, no questions arose”
The court also remarked that when Arvind Kejriwal and his party leaders had earlier got relief from the same court, no question was raised on impartiality. He said that challenging the judicial process only when the decision is against oneself cannot be considered a right tradition. The same procedure is followed in many cases in the court and has been consistently accepted.
Other cases also mentioned, allegations rejected
Justice Sharma also mentioned the cases of Sanjay Singh and Manish Sisodia during the hearing. He said that the Supreme Court had not made any negative comments on the orders given in these cases. This makes it clear that the allegations made regarding the court’s decisions are not based on facts.
Also read: Situation deteriorated during Trump-Munir talks, Hormuz became the biggest obstacle in peace talks