The AAP chief says in a letter that he has lost faith in the judge’s ability to deliver justice, and that he retains the right to approach the Supreme Court
NEW DELHI — The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) supremo and former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal has significantly upped the ante in his tussle with the Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who is hearing a plea challenging his acquittal in the excise policy case.
Writing to Justice Swarana Sharma, Kejriwal said he won’t appear before her as he has lost faith in her ability to deliver justice. Kejriwal’s letter comes days after the judge turned down his plea seeking her recusal in the case.
However, according to legal experts, the non-appearance by Kejriwal might land him in trouble and result in a warrant against him. “In a case of acquittal, the court would have made the accused sign a bond that he will appear before the court for any appeal proceedings under the relevant sections. If the accused fails to appear in compliance with the bond, the court can issue warrants – first a bailable warrant and then a non-bailable warrant to compel him to appear in court,” media reports quoted Senior Advocate Satish Tamta as saying.
Kejriwal had sought the judge’s recusal, also citing a “grave, bona fide and reasonable apprehension” of bias. Among his arguments were concerns over the judge’s alleged participation in events organised by the RSS-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad and the empanelment of her children as legal counsel for the central government.
In his letter sent on Monday, Kejriwal accused the judge of a conflict of interest, claiming that her children, who work as panel lawyers with the central government, have professional links to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is appearing against him in the case.
“I have written the following letter to Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, informing her that, since pursuing Gandhian principles of Satyagraha, it won’t be possible for me to pursue this case in her court, either in person or through counsel,” Kejriwal wrote.
He added, “I have taken this difficult decision after coming to the clear conclusion that the proceedings being conducted in her court do not, in any manner, satisfy the fundamental principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done”.
The AAP national convenor further stated, “I have taken this decision by heeding the voice of my conscience,” while also keeping legal options open.
“I reserve the right to approach the Supreme Court to appeal against Justice Swarana Kanta’s verdict,” he asserted in the letter.
Kejriwal’s decision comes days after Justice Sharma declined to recuse herself from hearing the case related to the Delhi excise policy, dismissing allegations of bias and conflict of interest raised by the AAP leader.
In a strongly worded order, the court underlined the principle of judicial independence and rejected claims that the proceedings would not be impartial.
“My oath is to the Constitution. My oath has taught me that justice does not bend under pressure. Justice does not yield to any pressure. I will decide and adjudicate fearlessly without any bias. I will not recuse from this case,” Justice Sharma said while delivering her ruling.
She emphasised that there exists a presumption of judicial impartiality, which must be rebutted with concrete evidence—something she noted was lacking in Kejriwal’s plea.
The judge also cautioned against undermining institutional credibility, observing that “the floodgates can’t be opened to sow seeds of mistrust,” and described the situation as a “Catch-22,” where recusal or refusal could both invite criticism. She added that stepping aside without valid grounds would amount to “abdication of duty”.
However, the court rejected these claims, stating that no direct nexus had been established between these factors and the case at hand.
The case stems from a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenge to a trial court order that had earlier discharged Kejriwal and several others in the excise policy matter.
The high court had issued notice on the CBI’s plea and flagged certain findings of the lower court as prima facie erroneous, prompting fresh legal proceedings.
Kejriwal, however, has maintained that the case is politically motivated and has repeatedly questioned the fairness of the process.
His refusal to appear marks a significant escalation, as it departs from conventional legal recourse and introduces a protest-based approach within an ongoing judicial matter.
With Kejriwal choosing not to participate in further hearings before the bench, the case is likely to move into a more complex legal and constitutional phase.
His stated intention to approach the Supreme Court could shape the next course of action, even as the High Court proceedings continue in his absence.
