When cornered, Arvind Kejriwal rarely retreats. Instead, he fights battles on his own terms.
Upholding this reputation, he has reportedly made it clear that he will not walk into the courtroom of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, the Delhi HC judge presiding over a plea that challenges his acquittal in the excise policy case.
Writing to Justice Sharma directly, he told her he had lost faith in her ability to deliver justice.
The timing matters. The letter came days after Justice Sharma rejected his plea seeking her recusal from the case.
His objection is specific. Kejriwal has alleged a conflict of interest, pointing out that Justice Sharma’s children work as panel lawyers with the central government. He claimed they have professional links to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the very lawyer appearing against him in the case.
In his letter, Kejriwal invoked Gandhian principles of Satyagraha to explain his stand. He said he had reached a clear conclusion that the proceedings did not satisfy the fundamental principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. He also reserved the right to approach the Supreme Court against Justice Sharma’s verdict.
Legal experts, however, have flagged a risk. Senior Advocate Satish Tamta pointed out that in acquittal cases, the accused signs a bond to appear for any appeal proceedings.
If that bond is breached, the court can first issue a bailable warrant and then a non-bailable warrant to compel appearance.
Justice Sharma had been unequivocal when she turned down the recusal plea. She reportedly said her oath was to the Constitution, that justice does not bend under pressure, and that she would adjudicate fearlessly without bias. She warned against opening the floodgates of mistrust and described the situation as a Catch-22 where both recusal and refusal invite criticism. Stepping aside without valid grounds, she said, would amount to abdication of duty.
Kejriwal’s recusal plea had rested on what he called a grave and reasonable apprehension of bias. He had cited the judge’s alleged participation in events organised by the RSS-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, alongside the empanelment of her children as central government counsel. The court rejected both arguments, finding no direct link between these factors and the case before it.
The case itself originates from a CBI challenge to a trial court order that had discharged Kejriwal and others in the excise policy matter. The High Court had issued notice on the CBI’s plea and flagged certain findings of the lower court as prima facie erroneous.
Kejriwal has consistently called the case politically motivated. His refusal to participate now takes that argument out of the courtroom and into the domain of protest, a significant escalation from conventional legal recourse.
With the High Court set to proceed in his absence, and a potential Supreme Court appeal on the horizon, the case is heading into murkier legal and constitutional territory.
Also Read: Raghav Chadha, Sandeep Pathak, Ashok Mittal Join BJP After Quitting AAP https://www.vibesofindia.com/377939-2/
