New Delhi, April 21 -- Delhi high court judge justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday dismissed applications filed by former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia and others seeking her recusal from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI's) appeal against a trial court order discharging them in the Delhi excise policy case. In a judgment delivered over more than an hour, justice Sharma observed that a mere apprehension of not receiving relief cannot justify recusal, as it risked allowing litigants to influence the adjudicatory process. She held that there was no "demonstrable cause" for recusal, warning that stepping aside on the basis of perceived bias would set a disturbing precedent. "Judges are bound by the discipline of their office, and if they bow down to such vilification, it would not only be an attack on the individual judge but on the institution. Today it is this court; tomorrow it will be another court. A recusal would also lead to public to believe that judges are aligned to particular political party or ideology, to their own commands and to remain neutral adjudicators," the court said. "In case this court withdraws from this case in the absence of any demonstrable cause, as is required under the law of recusal, it would be attaching weight to allegations which carry none. If I were to accept these applications, it would set up troubling precedent," the court added. Kejriwal had argued himself in the petition asking justice Sharma to recuse. On April 16, the former CM had contended that the judge's children were empanelled with the Centre and are allocated cases by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, who was contesting the appeal on behalf of the agency. But on Monday, justice Sharma dismissed the allegations, stating that a judge cannot abdicate responsibility in the face of allegations. She added that the application lacked evidence and was instead based on aspersions and insinuations casting doubt on her integrity. "Today it is not a dispute between two litigants but between myself and the litigant. Allegations and insinuations though persistent and loud cannot replace the proof required for recusal. In case recusal is allowed, the process will not remain independent but vulnerable to allegations. Allegations and insinuations, though persistent and loud, can never take the place of the proof required in law for seeking recusal....