Arvind Kejriwal’s recusal application against Justice Swarnkanta Sharma is not a legitimate legal move. It is a brazen endeavour to scandalise the very due process of justice. Instead of challenging her order issuing notice on the CBI’s revision petition before the Supreme Court (an avenue available to every litigant under law), he has resorted to seeking her recusal. If you are aggrieved by an appealable order, you file an appeal, you do not run a campaign to transfer or disqualify the judge whose order you dislike. That is not a demand for justice, that is intimidation. Let us be clear, Justice Swarnkanta Sharma’s court is the designated Special Court for MP/MLA cases. It is the only court that is supposed to hear Arvind Kejriwal’s matter – exactly as it would for any other Member of Parliament or Legislative Assembly. There is nothing extraordinary here; it is the law. The Supreme Court of India has itself mandated fast-track hearingsin all cases involving MPs and MLAs. The timelines fixed for hearing the CBI’s revision petition against Kejriwal’s discharge in the Liquor Scam case are therefore not “hasty” – they are in complete consonance with the apex court’s mandate for speedy justice in such matters. Justice Swarnkanta Sharma’s credentials speak louder than any propaganda. She became a Magistrate at the tender age of 24, a Sessions Judge at 35, and rose to the High Court after nearly 30 years of impeccable, blemish-free judicial service. The absurd propaganda that she would be biased because her son and daughter are empanelled as panel counsel for the Union of India holds no water. The Government of India is the largest litigant in the country and empanels hundreds of lawyers. Most High Court judges have, at some point, been government counsel – yet they routinely pass strong orders against the government. Professional engagement of family members with the government bar does not create bias; it is a baseless smear. And the latest desperate claim – that because she attended seminars organised by Adhivakta Parishad, she is “ideologically inclined” towards RSS? Even the Chief Justice of India has attended such seminars. Yet Kejriwal never sought the CJI’s recusal. In fact, it was the bench of Justice Suryakant that granted him bail in the very same Liquor Scam cases. Selective outrage, anyone? The vicious Twitter campaign against Justice Sharma is nothing short of an attack on the independence of the judiciary. A judge who has served with honour for three decades is being maligned simply because she is doing her duty without fear or favour. judiciary cannot be held to ransom by political pressure or social media mobs.
