BREAKING| Arvind Kejriwal Boycotts Hearing In Liquor Policy Case Before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Invokes 'Gandhian Satyagraha'
Kejriwal stated that his decision was inspired by the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi on satyagraha
Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal has written to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court Judge, stating that he will not participate in further proceedings in the CBI liquor policy case pending before her Bench, citing a loss of confidence in the fairness of the proceedings and invoking Gandhian principles of satyagraha.
In a detailed letter addressed to the judge, Kejriwal said that his decision was taken “in all humility and with complete respect for judiciary,” but after concluding that the proceedings before the Court did not satisfy the fundamental principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. He clarified that the step was not taken in anger or disrespect, but out of concern for public faith in the impartiality of the judicial process.
He stated that he was prepared to face the adverse legal consequences of his decision.
“I shall not participate in the further proceedings. I am fully conscious that by doing so, I may prejudice my own legal interests. I am prepared to bear those consequences. That is the burden which every conscientious act of Gandhian satyagraha must bear, and my conscience leaves me no other dignified course.”
Justice Sharma is hearing the revision petitions filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the trial court's order discharging Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Sigh and all other accused in the alleged liquor policy corruption case.
Kejriwal had earlier filed an application seeking the recusal of Justice Sharma from the case, raising apprehension of bias on her part, on grounds such as her previous orders denying relief to Kejriwal in the case, her participation in the events of RSS-linked Adhivakta Parishad, her children's empanelment as Central Government Counsel under the Solicitor General etc. Kejriwal had appeared before Justice Sharma to argue the application himself.
Last week, Justice Sharma, dismissed the recusal application and decided to hear the matter herself.
He wrote that the language used in the order rejecting recusal conveyed that his plea had been perceived as a personal attack on the judge and the institution, which, according to him, made it impossible to believe that he would receive an impartial hearing. He said that while a litigant may accept an adverse order, it was more difficult to accept a judgment suggesting that the litigant sought to prove that the judge was “tainted” or that the Court could be “intimidated by a political litigant.”
Allegations Of Conflict Of Interest
In the letter, Kejriwal reiterated concerns about a perceived conflict of interest arising from the professional engagements of the judge's children on government legal panels. He noted that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, is the opposing party in the case.
According to the letter, both children of the judge are empanelled as government counsel and receive case assignments from the Solicitor General. Kejriwal referred to information obtained through the Right to Information Act indicating that the judge's son had been assigned a large number of cases between 2023 and 2025, and argued that the volume of assignments could translate into substantial professional remuneration.
He also referred to the timeline of empanelment of the judge's children after her elevation to the High Court, stating that these developments contributed to public apprehension about the appearance of impartiality in the proceedings.
“I cannot make peace with my soul by participating in proceedings marked, in my respectful view, by so grave an appearance of conflict, as though all were well. To do so would be a betrayal of my conscience, a disservice to the dignity of the judiciary, and an injustice to the people of India who still believe that courts are the last refuge against the overreach of power,” Kejriwal has said.
Invokes Gandhian Principle Of Satyagraha
Kejriwal stated that his decision to withdraw from participation in the proceedings was inspired by the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi on satyagraha. He said that after giving the authority an opportunity to consider and correct what he perceived to be a grave miscarriage of justice, his conscience no longer permitted him to continue participating in the proceedings.
He acknowledged that the decision could prejudice his own legal interests and lead to adverse consequences in law, but said he was prepared to bear those consequences. He described the step as a “conscientious act” intended to preserve public faith in the judiciary rather than undermine it.
Kejriwal clarified that his refusal to appear was confined to the present case and to future proceedings in which the same apprehensions arise. He stated that he would continue to appear before the judge in other matters unconnected with the Union Government, the Bharatiya Janata Party, or the RSS.
He also indicated that he reserves the right to challenge the order rejecting his recusal application before the Supreme Court. The letter concluded with a request that it be taken on record and that the Court proceed further as it deems fit.
“My objection is not to the institution of the High Court or the larger judicial system, but only to the continuance of this matter before Your Ladyship under a cloud of grave and unresolved questions and circumstances that have generated grave public doubt in your ability to dispense impartial justice,” he has said.