Kejriwal writes to Delhi HC judge, declines to participate further in excise policy case proceedings

NEW DELHI: In the aftermath of the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of his recusal plea, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal has written a detailed letter to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, expressing his decision not to participate in further proceedings in the excise policy case, citing concerns over perceived lack of impartiality.

The letter, addressed with what Kejriwal describes as “utmost respect” to both the judge and the institution of the judiciary, states that his decision is rooted not in defiance but in conscience. He emphasises that his faith in the judiciary as an institution remains intact, even as he raises apprehensions about fairness in the present case.

The development comes shortly after the Delhi High Court dismissed Kejriwal’s plea seeking the recusal of Justice Sharma. In its ruling, the court held that the allegations did not meet the legal threshold of a reasonable apprehension of bias and were based on conjecture rather than evidence.

Kejriwal told the Delhi High Court that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has consistently ruled in favour of ED and CBI, raising serious doubts about a fair hearing.

He argued that even a “reasonable apprehension of bias” is enough for recusal, citing past judgments and recent… pic.twitter.com/seAXkUUzUP

— LawChakra (@LawChakra) April 13, 2026

The court underscored that “the courtroom cannot become a theatre of perception”, cautioning against attempts to question judicial impartiality without substantive material. It further observed that allowing such pleas could undermine institutional credibility and set an undesirable precedent.

Rejecting the arguments, the court clarified that a judge cannot be asked to recuse merely on the basis of perceived bias, particularly when no direct conflict of interest is established. It also noted that judicial competence is assessed by higher courts, not litigants, and that participation in professional or public events does not compromise impartiality.

In his letter, Kejriwal reiterates concerns that were earlier raised in his recusal application. He refers to what he describes as the judge’s association with certain legal organisations and raises questions about potential conflict of interest arising from her children being empanelled as counsel for the Union government.

He further points to the role of the Solicitor General in assigning cases to panel lawyers and highlights figures related to case allocations, suggesting that these factors could give rise to a perception of bias in a politically sensitive matter.

The letter also states that the language used in the High Court’s order dismissing the recusal plea has contributed to his apprehension. According to Kejriwal, the characterisation of his plea as an “attack” on the judiciary has made it difficult for him to believe that the matter can now be heard on a “clean slate”.

Invoking the principles of Mahatma Gandhi’s satyagraha, Kejriwal frames his decision as a form of peaceful and conscientious protest. He states that after presenting his concerns through legal channels and reflecting on the Court’s response, he has chosen to withdraw from participation while remaining prepared to face any legal consequences.

He writes that such a course is not an act of rebellion but a “quiet insistence of conscience,” undertaken with humility and without ill-will.

A recurring theme in the letter is the principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. Kejriwal argues that the surrounding circumstances, in his view, may lead to a perception among the public that the outcome of the proceedings is predetermined, particularly given the political context of the case.

He also cites instances from judicial history where judges have recused themselves or sought transfer to avoid any appearance of conflict, suggesting that such steps have historically strengthened public confidence in the judiciary.

Concluding the letter, Kejriwal states that he will neither appear in person nor through counsel in the ongoing proceedings before the present bench. He acknowledges that this decision may prejudice his legal interests but says he is willing to accept the consequences as part of what he terms a principled stand.

At the same time, he clarifies that his decision is limited to this specific matter and does not reflect a general refusal to appear before the judge in other cases. He also indicates that he may challenge the recusal order before the Supreme Court.

The matter arises from the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 case, where the CBI has challenged the discharge of Kejriwal and others. With the recusal plea already dismissed and the latest communication indicating his non-participation, the High Court is expected to proceed further in accordance with the law.

The developments bring into focus the continuing tension between allegations of perceived bias and the judiciary’s consistent position that such claims must be supported by concrete evidence to warrant recusal. (ANI)