New Delhi: Delhi high court judge, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday (April 20) rejected the petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking her recusal from the Delhi excise policy case saying the “floodgates cannot be opened to sow seeds of mistrust”, Bar and Bench reported.This is after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) submitted documents in court detailing four instances where Justice Sharma participated in Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Parishad events between 2022 and 2025 to oppose recusal applications. In the judgement today, the bench of Justice Sharma rejected the allegations of bias against her and said that Kejriwal could not point out any “nexus” or political statement she made which would be indicative of the allegations of ideological bias.“There is a presumption of impartiality of a judge, and a presumption of impartiality has to be rebutted by the litigant seeking recusal of a judge,” Justice Sharma ruled, adding that the applications filed by Kejriwal and others amounted to putting the judiciary on trial.“The litigant has put the institution of judiciary on trial. I choose the path to resolve the controversy. The strength of judiciary lies in its strong resolve to decide the acquisitions. I have written the order without being affected by anything,” she said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.After a trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused in the excise policy case on February 27, the CBI had challenged the order. That is the case being heard in the high court by Justice Sharma. Former Delhi chief minister Kejriwal, along with his former deputy Manish Sisodia and four others, had subsequently filed applications for Justice Sharma’s recusal arguing that her ideological bias gives rise to conflict of interest.Justice Sharma’s children are part of the Union government panel counsel.The CBI, however, countered bias allegations noting that Justice Sharma granted interim bail to co-accused Arun Ramchandran Pillai on three separate occasions and that passing favourable and unfavourable orders removes any apprehension of bias.Regarding the Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Parishad events she attended, which is affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, she said that the same were not political events but on the “new criminal laws”.“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 said.She questioned how her children being on a legal panel becomes a conflict of interest in her hearing the excise policy case.“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,” she said.Calling it a “catch-22 situation”, she further claimed that Kejriwal had created a “win-win situation” for himself seeking her recusal in the case.“The applicant (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, adding that it would lead the public to believe that judges are aligned with a particular political party or ideology.“This Court, by penning a recusal, cannot allow this. I am asking this question to myself. Maine apne aap se puchha ki agar m recuse nhi karungi to kya ho sakta hai. Fir maine socha agar m recuse karti hu tab kya hoga. (I asked myself what will happen if I don’t recuse myself. I also asked myself what will happen if I recuse),” she said.Previously, the CBI has defended Justice Sharma’s interim ex-parte stay on adverse trial court observations against the investigating officer. The agency submitted that these interim orders do not bind the court at the final hearing and cannot cause bias.