Arvind Kejriwal deliberately threw a spanner in the liquor scam appeal proceedings by questioning the probity of a High Court judge. This episode also consumed considerable judicial resources. Given how strongly the Delhi Bar claims to stand united, why isn’t it supporting one of its own (i.e. the learned judge and her son and daughter - both budding lawyers who did not deserve such public smearing), and condemning Kejriwal’s actions?

The judges are a nepotistic cabal of generational privilege. Most of these judges are judges due to the family they are born into. He has every right to question the integrity of the said judge, if she is openly attending rss functions and her children are receiving pecuniary benefits from one of the parties to the litigation, I.e., the government, especially after it has been proven that the charges against him were politically motivated. It's high time someone holds these unqualified nepotistic judges accountable.

1. Delhi Bar isn't as united as it was. I have very strong resentments with the current leadership, but that's separate from this issue. Anyway, look at how the decision was taken to make Saturdays working. It was only after several months that the Bar called for a strike on Saturdays.

2. Come speak to the members of the Delhi Bar to know how they really feel, and how things really here are and how most of us feel about each of the judges.

3. The current president of the Bar has represented Kejriwal previously on multiple occasions. I do not think it would be appropriate for him to make any such comments - it would appear very improper. My resentments with the Prez. are about his inability to take a stand/lack of a spine. Even then, I do find him to be a man of integrity. I do not think he would want to muddy his reputation by making any political comments.

4. Kejriwal actually was not "questioning the probity of" the judge. He said there is apprehension of bias, especially given that similar findings against him have been given in the previous cases (including Kejru's WP challenging his arrest. Apprehension of bias is not the same as questioning someone's 'probity'.

4.a. Especially when his first ground was that detailed findings were given in previous judgments saying offence was prima facie made out + on the first date it was said that impugned order is prima facie wrong. Charge/discharge anyway has to be determined at a prima facie standard - so that finding already stands given. (Sidenote: yes, yes. Technically standard of charge/discharge is "grave suspicion" - Dilawar Kurane, Sajjan Singh et al - but that's being pedantic).

Anyway, no point commenting on merits/demerits of the recusal application itself. But worthwhile to point out that seeking recusal is not automatically the same as casting aspersions on a judge.