Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convenor Arvind Kejriwal on Monday wrote a letter to Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, stating that he will neither appear in person nor send a lawyer for the hearing in the Delhi excise policy case. In the letter, Kejriwal said he has "lost hope of getting justice" from the judge and has decided to follow Mahatma Gandhi’s path of Satyagraha. He added that the decision was taken after listening to his “inner voice” and maintained that he will exercise his right to appeal the order before the Supreme Court.
This development comes days after the Delhi High Court refused to allow a plea by Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Delhi excise policy case. In his application, Kejriwal claimed that there was a grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension that the hearing before her would not be impartial and neutral. His plea stated that she has heard multiple cases arising from the CBI FIR, including Kejriwal’s petition against his arrest, and never granted relief to any of the accused.
However, Justice Sharma made it clear that recusal cannot be granted on the basis of perception or unfounded apprehension, warning that such attempts risk eroding public trust in the judiciary. She said the allegations were “based on conjectures and insinuations” and fell short of the legal standard required to establish bias. Addressing the allegations that her children are central government panel counsels, the judge remarked: "Sirf Kejriwal ji ne ye allegation lagaya hain" (Only Kejriwal ji has levelled this allegation), adding that if such charges are expected, then the "court will not be able to hear any matter in which the Union of India is a party."
She further stated that "if children of politicians can enter politics, how will it be fair to question when children or family of judges enter the legal profession and struggle and prove themselves like others?" She noted that "such insinuation is not only unfounded but also overlooks the judicial office and the integrity attached to it." "There is such a thing as an actual conflict of interest, and then there’s making it look like one to everyone else. In this case, they’ve portrayed a conflict where none actually exists. A litigant cannot be permitted to create a situation that lowers the judicial process," she said.
