AAP claims victory for Arvind Kejriwal as Judge Swarna Kanta Sharma recuses herself from excise policy case

NEW DELHI: The Aam Aadmi Party on Friday claimed a major legal ‘victory’ after Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma recused herself from the excise policy case. The recusal comes after weeks of legal arguments by the AAP convenor and other accused parties regarding their right to an unbiased hearing.

According to the AAP, Judge Swarna Kanta Sharma has recused herself from hearing the matter after sustained objections raised by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal and other accused over concerns regarding a fair trial. Calling it a major victory for Arvind Kejriwal, the AAP said the decision vindicates the stand taken by its leadership from the very beginning.

On this development, AAP National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal stated, “Truth has prevailed. Gandhi Ji’s Satyagraha has once again emerged victorious.” In a statement, the AAP noted that Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others had repeatedly requested Judge Swarna Kanta Sharma to step away from the matter, citing conflict of interest concerns and apprehensions regarding a fair trial.

The party stated that Arvind Kejriwal had written a detailed letter to Judge Swarna Kanta Sharma listing ten valid reasons and expressing hope that she would voluntarily recuse herself from the case. “However, despite these concerns being raised, Judge Swarna Kanta Sharma had earlier decided not to withdraw from hearing the matter. Following that decision, Arvind Kejriwal had gone to Rajghat, paid homage at Mahatma Gandhi’s memorial and resolved to follow the path of Satyagraha by deciding not to appear before her court in the matter,” the AAP asserted.

सत्य की हमेशा जीत होती है। pic.twitter.com/XgQqDWct5S

— AAP (@AamAadmiParty) May 15, 2026

The party said, “Arvind Kejriwal had maintained that whatever order her court passed would be accepted and that he would exercise his legal rights by approaching the Supreme Court. Among the ten reasons cited by Arvind Kejriwal seeking the judge’s recusal, one major concern related to the fact that Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma’s children are empanelled with the Central Government. In the excise policy case, the Solicitor General appears on behalf of the CBI and allocates cases in his role as a senior authority.”

AAP stated that the Solicitor General (SG) assigns cases to the judge’s children and that substantial government fees are paid for those assignments. “Over the past few years, the judge’s children had received the highest number of case allocations. Arvind Kejriwal had raised apprehensions that when the careers of the judge’s children were dependent upon the Solicitor General, it would not be possible for her to pass an order against the Central Government,” it said.

The AAP further stated that another major concern raised by Arvind Kejriwal was Judge Swarna Kanta Sharma’s participation in programmes organised by the RSS-affiliated Adhivakta Parishad. “Because Judge Swarna Kanta Sharma had attended several such programmes, Arvind Kejriwal had expressed apprehensions about not receiving justice in the matter. Despite these serious and valid concerns being raised, Judge Swarna Kanta Sharma had earlier refused to recuse herself from the case,” the party pointed out.

The party stated that after this decision, Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia had gone to Rajghat, bowed before Mahatma Gandhi’s memorial and reiterated their commitment to the path of Satyagraha shown by the Father of the Nation. Arvind Kejriwal had then said, “We have immense respect for the judiciary, but circumstances have arisen that compel us to undertake this Satyagraha. I have unwavering faith that with Bapu’s blessings, we will remain steadfast with complete sincerity on this difficult path of Satyagraha.”

Meanwhile, AAP Delhi State President Saurabh Bharadwaj reacted to reports regarding contempt proceedings and said, “News reports suggest that Hon’ble Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma of the High Court has initiated contempt proceedings against AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and myself. During her order, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma repeatedly emphasised two things. First, she repeatedly said that she was not doing this out of personal displeasure, but to protect the credibility and dignity of the judiciary. She repeatedly said that this was not for herself. Second, she said that she had two paths before her, an easy path and a difficult path, and that she chose the difficult one every time. I want to say a few things in this regard.”

Saurabh Bharadwaj said, “During the proceedings, Justice Sharma referred to my press conferences and my X handle. I was happy to know that she watches my press conferences. For the last one week, I have been raising the issue of the rape of a three-year-old girl, in which a lower court judge granted bail to a 57-year-old accused. I would have been happier if she had taken suo motu cognisance of that extremely serious matter based on those press conferences and media reports.”

He further stated, “I had also explained in my press conference how Delhi’s current Chief Minister and BJP leader Rekha Gupta had, on record before the media, claimed that the order of the Rouse Avenue Special CBI Court acquitting Arvind Kejriwal and others in the excise matter was managed through ‘setting’. This directly means that she called a sitting judge corrupt. We repeatedly raised this issue through press conferences and videos. I would have appreciated it if, in order to protect the dignity of the judiciary, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma had initiated contempt proceedings against the BJP Chief Minister in this matter.”

Saurabh Bharadwaj added, “On March 31, I had formally written to the Registrar of the High Court with evidence stating that Chief Minister Rekha Gupta had referred to a judge of the judiciary as being ‘fixed’, but no action was taken. I only wish to tell Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma that the law does not say one must abandon the easy path and deliberately choose the difficult path. No law book says that. A judge only has to choose the path of justice. She repeatedly says there were two paths before her, but in the pursuit of justice, there is only one path, and that is the path of truth and justice. There are no easy or difficult paths in justice.”

He further said, “If choosing the difficult path was truly the intention, then action should have been taken against the BJP Chief Minister. Only then could it have been called a difficult path. I do not believe that initiating contempt proceedings against AAP or opposition leaders amounts to taking a difficult path. To protect the credibility of the judiciary, action should have been taken against Chief Minister Rekha Gupta.”

The AAP Delhi Unit Chief pointed out, “We have repeatedly raised this issue on X, YouTube and across social and mainstream media. I would have appreciated it if suo motu cognisance had been taken in this matter, because if we file a complaint ourselves, permission from the Central Government would be required, and that government would never grant permission.”

Saurabh Bharadwaj further said, “Contempt proceedings against Chief Minister Rekha Gupta can only begin if the High Court or Supreme Court itself takes suo motu cognisance and registers the matter. Unfortunately, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma has so far not been seen walking on that so-called difficult path.”

Former Delhi CM and Delhi Assembly Leader of Opposition Atishi stated, “This is a major victory for Arvind Kejriwal because ultimately Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma has recused herself from the excise policy case.” (ANI)