Top Tweets for #AAPIANS

The Deception in the Courtroom I watched this video at least twenty times. Not to find ammunition. Because I was sincerely trying to understand her argument. After all, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma is a High Court judge. You have to take her seriously. What I found, after twenty viewings, was deliberate misdirection. Wrapped in legal language, structured to sound like constitutional principle, designed to make the judge appear as though she had answered a question she had carefully avoided. She made her argument in open court. It sounded principled. It was not. It is an act of intellectual dishonesty, and it falls apart under the simplest scrutiny. Arvind Kejriwal, appearing as a litigant in her court, had raised a challenge about conflict of interest. The judge's response deserves to be read carefully. "When a judge sits as neutral adjudicator, the parties appearing before court cannot question competence of judges by stating that since some judgments have been modified or set aside by higher courts she is therefore not fit to do justice. There exists a clear boundary line for judges when it comes to entering the domain of Parliament or state legislature and questioning certain aspects, except as permitted under Constitution. The same principle will apply in reverse - A politician cannot be permitted to cross boundaries and sit in judgment over competence of judge." Three problems. Each one serious on its own. Together, they constitute a work of judicial misdirection that should concern every citizen. Problem One: The Wrong Person in the Room The judge addresses her argument to a politician. But Kejriwal was not in her court as a politician. He was there as a litigant. A citizen. A party to a case over which she presides. This distinction is not semantic. It is the entire foundation of the matter. A litigant's right to raise a conflict of interest challenge is one of the most fundamental rights in any legal system. It exists precisely because justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. When a party says the judge hearing their case has a conflict of interest, they are not making a political speech. They are exercising a procedural right that the law itself recognizes. By reframing Kejriwal exclusively as a politician crossing into judicial territory, the judge sidesteps this entirely. The political identity becomes a disqualification. The litigant's standing disappears. A citizen raising a legitimate procedural objection gets converted, by rhetorical sleight of hand, into a politician out of bounds. This is the first misdirection. Being a politician does not make you less of a citizen. It does not strip you of your rights as a litigant. The reframing was not accidental. It was necessary. Because if Kejriwal remains a litigant, the challenge must be addressed on its merits. The only way to avoid that is to make him someone else. Problem Two: Competence Is Not Conflict of Interest The judge's first argument is defensible on its own terms. Litigants cannot demand a judge's removal simply because higher courts have overturned her judgments. Reversal rates do not equal incompetence. A judge can be reversed often and still be fit to adjudicate. That argument stands. But the challenge before the court was not about COMPETENCE. It was about CONFLICT OF INTEREST. These are categorically different things. Competence is a general question about a judge's ability. Conflict of interest is a specific, case-bound question about a judge's impartiality in a particular matter. The standards are different. The remedies are different. The rights attached to each are different. Even the most brilliant, experienced, and universally respected judge must recuse if there is a legitimate question about their neutrality in a specific case. Recusal is not about rating a judge. It is about protecting the integrity of a specific proceeding. CONT++