Kejriwal Refuses To Appear Before Judge In Delhi Liquor Policy Case

AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal has said he will not pursue his case before Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in matters linked to the Delhi liquor policy case. Describing his stand as an act of “satyagraha”, he said he would neither appear personally nor through legal counsel before her bench.

In a public statement, Kejriwal said he had written to the judge with “complete respect” for the judiciary, but no longer believed he would receive a fair hearing in her court. He added that he would challenge her refusal to recuse herself from the case.

Kejriwal claimed the proceedings did not satisfy the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. He said further participation would serve no meaningful purpose. However, he clarified that he would continue to appear before Justice Sharma in unrelated matters, including cases not involving the Union government, the BJP, the RSS or the Solicitor General.

Last week, Justice Sharma dismissed Kejriwal’s plea seeking her recusal. She said judicial integrity could not be placed on trial by litigants and reaffirmed that her duty was to the Constitution. According to the court, stepping aside would have been easier, but deciding the matter on merit was necessary to preserve institutional integrity.

The judge further observed that litigants could not be allowed to undermine the judicial process by creating doubts without evidence. She rejected allegations of bias and said apprehensions held by a party could not by themselves justify recusal.

Kejriwal had sought her withdrawal on two principal grounds. First, he referred to her attendance at events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, which he described as aligned with the ideological ecosystem of the ruling establishment. He argued that, as a political opponent of the BJP and RSS, such associations created a perception of bias.

Secondly, he raised concerns about an alleged conflict of interest arising from the professional engagements of the judge’s children on government legal panels. He claimed they had received multiple case assignments linked to the Union government, whose agencies are opposing parties in the matter. He argued that these circumstances could create public doubt about impartiality.

In his letter, Kejriwal said his concern was not personal but rooted in the need to preserve faith in the judiciary. He praised the courts as protectors of constitutional values over the past 75 years and said citizens often turn to them when other institutions fail.

Invoking Mahatma Gandhi’s principle of satyagraha, he said a citizen must first raise perceived injustice respectfully before the relevant authority, reflect on his own motives, and accept consequences if conscience still demands resistance.

Kejriwal also said the language used in the order rejecting recusal had deepened his concerns. He argued that his plea appeared to have been treated as a personal attack on the judge and the institution, rather than as a legal request based on apprehension.

The former Delhi Chief Minister, in his latest letter, stressed that his refusal applied only to this matter and any future proceedings where the same concerns arose. He said it should not be seen as a blanket refusal to appear before the judge in all cases.

He also reserved the right to challenge the order rejecting recusal and to pursue further remedies before the Supreme Court after consulting his legal team.

In closing, he said his faith in the Constitution remained unwavering and his respect for the judiciary intact. His objection, he said, was not to the institution itself but to the continuation of this case before a bench overshadowed, in his view, by unresolved questions that had created public doubt over impartial justice.

The dispute now raises a broader constitutional question: how courts balance judicial independence with the public perception of fairness in politically sensitive cases.