By Prateek Chauhan

In a democracy, the credibility of institutions rests not only on what is done, but on how it appears to be done. The recent courtroom friction involving Arvind Kejriwal and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has brought this principle into uncomfortable focus, casting a shadow over the perceived neutrality of the justice system.

At the heart of the controversy lies a clash that seems less about legal merit and more about posture. Kejriwal’s submissions in court, by several accounts, did little to elevate the legal discourse. The arguments lacked the rigour expected in a matter of such sensitivity—something even routine counsel could arguably have articulated more effectively. Yet, the burden of preserving institutional dignity does not rest on one side alone.

Equally significant is Justice Sharma’s decision to continue presiding over the matter despite implicit and explicit calls for recusal. In judicial ethics, perception often carries as much weight as propriety. Even the faintest apprehension of bias can erode public confidence. While there may have been no direct legal bar preventing her from hearing the case, stepping aside could have pre-empted the very controversy now engulfing the proceedings.

The situation is further complicated by arguments surrounding familial associations with government panels—claims that, legally speaking, may not have had a material bearing on the case. Yet, by choosing to contest rather than defuse these concerns, the court inadvertently allowed a narrative of personalisation to take root. What could have remained a technical objection has now ballooned into a question of institutional perception.

This is not the first time Justice Sharma has demonstrated assertiveness in the courtroom. In March 2026, she pulled up the Delhi Police over delays in the MCOCA case involving former AAP MLA Naresh Balyan, who has been in custody since December 2024. In another matter linked to AAP leader Satyendar Jain, she directed a change of the trial court judge. These actions underscore a judge unafraid to take strong positions—but they also make the current insistence on continuing with a contentious case appear more layered.

Kejriwal’s sharply worded 25-point communication to the court further aggravated the situation. Such a letter, rather than a measured legal instrument, risked being interpreted as a challenge to judicial authority. The court had alternatives—it could have summoned him, sought clarification, or even appointed an amicus curiae to assist with neutrality. Instead, the episode escalated into a spectacle that blurred the lines between legal process and personal confrontation.

There is also a constitutional nuance at play. Under Article 22(1), an accused has the right to legal representation of their choice. This limits the court’s ability to impose procedural correctives that might otherwise de-escalate tensions. Yet, constitutional rights must coexist with courtroom discipline—something that seemed to falter here.

The larger concern, however, is not about who is legally right, but what this episode signals. Justice must not only be impartial; it must also be seen to be impartial. When a judge becomes a perceived stakeholder—rightly or wrongly—the moral authority of the eventual verdict weakens, regardless of its legal soundness.

At the same time, political murmurs suggest that the Aam Aadmi Party may have preferred a different bench—an allegation that, if true, reflects its own attempt to shape judicial optics. If the petitioner’s strategy was indeed to influence the composition of the bench, it raises uncomfortable questions about political engagement with the judiciary.

In the end, both sides appear to have misjudged the moment. What was required was restraint—legal, rhetorical, and personal. Instead, the episode has evolved into a case study of how institutional credibility can be strained not by illegality, but by perception.

The lesson is clear: in matters of justice, ego is a poor advocate.

(Cover Photo: Bar & Bench/facebook.com)

AAPArvind KejriwalCentre for Legal Action and Behaviour Change for ChildrencourtroomIndiaIndian LawJudiciaryJusticeJustice Swarana Kanta SharmaLawPolitics