NEW DELHI: Former Delhi chief minister and Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal on Monday wrote a letter to Delhi high court justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, refusing to appear in person or through a lawyer for the hearing in the Delhi excise policy case.In the letter, Kejriwal said that he has “lost hope of getting justice” from the high court judge and has decided to “follow Mahatma Gandhi’s path of Satyagraha.”“I have lost hope of getting justice from Justice Swarana Kanta ji. That is why I have decided to follow Mahatma Gandhi’s path of satyagraha,” Kejriwal said.
He added that the decision was taken after listening to his “inner voice” and maintained that he will exercise his right to appeal the order before the Supreme Court.I have taken this decision after listening to my inner conscience. I will reserve the right to approach the Supreme Court to appeal Justice Swarana Kanta’s decision,” Kejriwal said.‘Elected government was brought down unfairly’Kejriwal also posted a video, saying that he is standing at a crossroad where he has to choose between a difficult path or the easy one.“There are moments in life when winning or losing does not matter; what matters more is the question of what is right and what is wrong. At such times, we must decide whether to choose the difficult path or the easy one. Today, I stand at such a crossroads. You all know that I was implicated in a false case, sent to jail, and an elected government was brought down unfairly. We were kept in prison for months, but in the end, truth prevailed. On February 27, the court declared me completely innocent. The court said Kejriwal is innocent and has committed no corruption. It also raised questions over the CBI’s investigation and ordered action against the investigating officer,” Kejriwal said.“But the path of truth is never easy. The CBI immediately challenged this verdict in the High Court, and the case came before Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma. At that point, a serious question arose in my mind—will I get justice before her? There are two main reasons. First, the same ideological ecosystem that brought false charges against me is one whose affiliated platforms the judge has been associated with, while I and the Aam Aadmi Party oppose that ideology. Second, there is a conflict of interest—the case against me involves the central government’s CBI, and both of Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma’s children are on the government’s panel of lawyers, with case allocations influenced by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta,” he added.He also said that his “intention is not to challenge or disrespect the judiciary, but to strengthen people’s faith in the justice system.”“I want to make it clear that I have full faith in the judiciary and I deeply respect it. It is this judiciary that granted me bail and later declared me innocent. But there is a fundamental principle of justice: “Justice should not only be done, but should also be seen to be done.” With this in mind, I respectfully requested that she recuse herself from the case, but she declined,” he said.“The easiest path before me now is to accept the order and fight the case. But this is no longer just about me—it is about people’s faith in the justice system. Following Mahatma Gandhi’s path, I have decided that I will neither appear in her court nor will any lawyer represent me in this case. However, I will retain my legal rights, including approaching the Supreme Court if needed,” he added.This comes days after Delhi high court refused allow a plea by Kejriwal which sought the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Delhi excise policy case.In the application, Kejriwal claimed that there was a grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension that the hearing in the matter before her would not be impartial and neutral.His plea stated that she has heard multiple cases arising from the CBI FIR, including Kejriwal’s petition against his arrest, and never given relief to any of the accused.However, Justice Sharma made it clear that recusal cannot be granted on the basis of perception or unfounded apprehension, warning that such attempts risk eroding public trust in the judiciary.It said the allegations were “based on conjectures and insinuations” and fell short of the legal standard required to establish bias.Addressing the allegations of her children being central government panel counsels, the judge said: “Sirf Kejriwal ji ne ye allegation lagaya hain” (Only Kerjriwal ji has levelled his allegation), adding that that if such charge is expected, then the “court will not be able tk hear any matter in which UoI is a party”.She further said “if children of politicians can enter politics, how will it be fair to question when children or family of judge enter legal profession and struggle and prove themselves like others” and noted that “such insinuation is not only unfounded but also overlooks judicial office and integrity attached to it”.“There is such a thing as an actual conflict of interest, and then there’s making it look like one to everyone else. In this case, they’ve portrayed a conflict where none actually exists. A litigant cant be permitted to create situation that lowers judicial process,” she said.
