Last Updated:
Justice Sharma made it clear that a litigant cannot question how a judge’s family chooses to live.
AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal. (PTI/File)
While pronouncing the verdict in the Delhi excise policy case, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma made strong remarks on comments made about her family, stressing the independence of the judiciary and the need to keep personal matters out of court proceedings.
This comes as former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal stated in an affidavit that the judge’s children are empanelled Central government lawyers who receive “substantial work” through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who has appeared for the prosecuting agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Responding to these concerns, the court said there was no link between her family members and the case at hand. It noted that none of her relatives had appeared before her court or were connected to matters related to the Delhi excise policy.
The court said, “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.”
Justice Sharma also made it clear that a litigant cannot question how a judge’s family chooses to live. She said, “A litigant cannot dictate how children or family members of a judge are to live their lives.”
On allegations of bias, the court said such claims must be supported with clear evidence. “In the absence of any proof that the office of the court has been misused by the children of a judge, not a whisper of such allegation can be made.”
Addressing the issue of her son being associated with the Solicitor General, the court said that such professional links do not automatically imply any conflict unless a direct connection to the case is shown. It observed that if relatives of a judge are on any government panel, the litigant must establish how it affects the present case or the decision-making process, which was not done in this instance.
The court further underlined that lawyers may represent political parties, but cases are decided purely on merit and not on political affiliations. It added that no litigant can disrupt the relationship between the Bar and the Bench on political grounds.
“Some members of the bar may be representing a poltiical party but when they appear before the court, their cases are adjudicated on merits, not political affiliations,” the court observed.
According to the affidavit filed by Kejriwal, Justice Sharma’s son is empanelled as a Group A counsel for the Centre before the Supreme Court, while her daughter is listed as a Group C counsel and also represents the Centre in the Delhi High Court, as reported by Live Law.
April 20, 2026, 6:58 PM IST
Read More
Source link
[ad_3]
