New Delhi: Amid the ongoing legal and political controversy surrounding Arvind Kejriwal’s remarks on judicial proceedings, sections of the legal fraternity have strongly criticised his approach, calling it inappropriate and potentially damaging to institutional credibility.
Senior legal voices have argued that questioning a judicial order through public statements or direct communication to a sitting judge, especially after a recusal plea has already been rejected, goes against established legal norms. According to them, once a court has passed an order, the appropriate course of action is to seek remedy through higher judicial forums such as the Supreme Court, rather than reiterating allegations in public discourse.
Critics have also described Kejriwal’s actions as part of a broader political strategy, suggesting that raising allegations against individuals or institutions has often been used as a tool to gain public attention. They contend that extending such criticism to the judiciary risks undermining public confidence in the legal system.
Legal experts emphasised that the judiciary functions on the principle that disputes must be addressed strictly within the framework of law. Any dissatisfaction with a judicial decision, they noted, must be pursued through appeals and legal procedures, not through external commentary that may be perceived as questioning the integrity of judges.
On the issue of recusal, experts pointed out that Kejriwal had already exercised his right by filing a recusal application, which was dismissed by the court. In such circumstances, they argue, the next legal step should have been to challenge the order before a higher court, rather than refusing to participate in proceedings or issuing statements critical of the judge.
They further noted that while any individual has the right to choose whether or not to appear in court, such a decision can have legal consequences. Courts may issue notices, and in certain cases, even warrants if a party fails to comply with judicial directions. Additionally, the court has the authority to appoint an amicus curiae or a legal aid counsel to represent the absent party and ensure proceedings continue.
Addressing the allegation of “conflict of interest,” legal experts clarified that professional rules already govern such situations. As per established norms, lawyers are restricted from appearing before judges who are closely related to them. However, broader assumptions about bias must be carefully evaluated by the court itself, keeping in mind both legal standards and public perception.
Overall, legal commentators have cautioned that while criticism and dissent are part of a democratic system, actions that may be interpreted as undermining judicial authority or bypassing due process could have far-reaching implications for the credibility and functioning of institutions.
