Who is Swarana Kanta Sharma? Delhi High Court judge at centre of row with Arvind Kejriwal to decide on recusal today

In a rare legal twist, Arvind Kejriwal personally argued in the Delhi High Court seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing matters linked to the excise policy case. The judge is set to deliver her verdict on the plea at 4:30 PM on Monday.

Who is Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma?
Justice Sharma began her academic journey at Daulat Ram College, where she studied English Literature and was named best all-round student. She completed her LLB in 1991 and LLM in 2004, later earning a PhD in 2025 focused on judicial education across multiple countries.

She became a magistrate at just 24 and a sessions judge at 35, going on to serve for over three decades across various courts, including family courts, special courts for crimes against women, and as a CBI judge. She was elevated as a permanent judge of the Delhi High Court in March 2022 and has also authored several books.

What sparked the controversy?
The dispute arises from proceedings in the Delhi excise policy case, where Justice Sharma had earlier denied bail to Kejriwal and other leaders, including Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, and K Kavitha, as investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Directorate progressed.

After a trial court discharged Kejriwal and others, the CBI challenged the ruling in the High Court. Justice Sharma, during an early hearing, stayed certain directions against a CBI officer and questioned aspects of the trial court’s findings—moves Kejriwal later argued were made without hearing his side.

Kejriwal’s arguments for recusal
Kejriwal sought transfer of the case and later filed a recusal plea, arguing it raised a reasonable apprehension of bias. He cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ranjit Thakur vs Union of India, which holds that perceived bias can be grounds for recusal.

He also flagged Justice Sharma’s participation in events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, and raised concerns over a potential conflict of interest, noting her children are empanelled as government counsel—work allocated by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the CBI in the case.

CBI’s response
The CBI opposed the plea, with Mehta calling it a “dangerous precedent,” arguing that judges routinely attend professional events and that Justice Sharma’s children had no involvement in the case.

After hearing arguments, Justice Sharma reserved her order last week and is now set to rule on whether she will step aside from the case.