By Dr. Gyan Pathak
AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal’s writing a letter to the Justice of Delhi High Court Swarna Kanta Sharma informing her that he would not participate further in the proceeding of her court in the CBI’ liquor policy case citing a loss of confidence, has just brought in focus again the question of public perception about neutrality of justice in the country. Kejriwal has earlier requested the justice to recuse, which she had turned down, and insisted on hearing the case.
She in her April 20, 2026 judgement has said that she will not recuse holding that the submissions of six applicants seeking her recusal – on grounds including her prior adjudication of identical legal questions in separate proceedings – amounted to an attack on her “dignity” and “integrity”, a “personal attack” against her, an “attack on the institution” of the judiciary, and an attempt to “lower the judicial process itself by raising unfounded allegations”.
CBI has filed an appeal against the Special Court’s judgement delivered in February, which discharged all the accused including Arvind Kejriwal in the Delhi liquor case of 2021-22 stating that CBI failed to prove the charges them and could not produce evidence. Nevertheless, Justice Kanta on earlier occasions said that the broad set of facts pointed towards Kejriwal’s guilt (Arvind Kejriwal vs ED), Mr Manish Sisodia, a co-accused, had committed the offence of money laundering (Manish Sisodia vs ED, and Mr Sanjay Sigh was prima facie guilty of offence under PMLA (Sanjay Singh vs Union of India).
Later when CBI filed appeal against the special court judgement discharging all accused in the case, the Justice Kanta’s order on March 9, 2026, which was passed ex-parte, described the Special Trial Court’s judgement as “prima facie erroneous”. The order was passed after an extremely brief hearing.
This created apprehension in the mind of Arvind Kejriwal and other petitioners who requested her recusal. The petitioners now say that the judge have made up her mind without hearing them. Now in his letter, Arvind Kejriwal said that he has lost confidence in her court and in fairness of the proceedings invoking the Gandhian principle of Satyagraha.
“In all humility and with complete respect of judiciary,” Kejriwal wrote adding that the proceeding before the court did not satisfy the fundamental principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
Kejriwal was also apologetic in tone and said that his step was not taken in anger or disrespect, but out of concern for public faith in the impartiality of the judicial process, and was ready to face the adverse legal consequences of his decision.
He wrote, “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 satyagrah must bear, and my conscience leaves me no other dignified course.”
In earlier hearing Arvind Kejriwal appearing in person and arguing his own case, raising apprehension of bias on several grounds. He said that she has earlier passed orders against him in the same case in which he has now been acquitted.
He has said that she has earlier participated in RSS linked events. It allegation was significant since in was RSS family political party BJP and its leaders PM Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, whom he alleged to conspire against him and got FIR filed against him through CBI, and later arrest by ED just before Lok Sabha election 2024 to disrupt his elections prospects.
Then again, he had said that her children were impanelled as Central Government Counsel under the Solicitor General and others. He said CBI is represented by SG Tushar Mehta under whom his children were getting assignments, while she is hearing CBI’s case against him.
Kejriwal said in the court that he has obtained information from RTI which indicate that her children had been assigned a large number of cases that could translate into substantial professional remuneration between 2023 and 2025. He said that the timeline of empanelment of her children after she was elevated to the High Court. Kejriwal even stated that these developments contributed to public apprehension about the appearance of impartiality in the proceedings.
He also said, “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. …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.”
Though Justice Sharma may be legally right in refusing recusal, Arvind Kejriwal’s Satyagraha that he will not participate in proceeding further, has created a difficult situation before her court in particular and the judiciary in general. It is chiefly because, under the PM Narendra Modi’s regime, several judges have been accused of favouring the government, and the institutions having government’s backing for personal gains or for gains of their relations, which we know as nepotism. Justice Kanta, if hears the case further, will have to judge the case without hearing Kejriwal. In such a sensitive political issue, many argue that she should recuse, though she may be legally correct. Public perception of neutrality of judiciary has once again become a talking point – especially in reference to integrity of the judiciary and the rights of an accused. (IPA Service)
