Back
Kejriwal's Gandhian Defiance: Boycotts Delhi HC Hearing in Liquor Policy Saga
In a dramatic turn invoking Mahatma Gandhi's principle of satyagraha , leader and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has written a poignant letter to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the , announcing his refusal to participate further in the 's (Crl.Rev.P. 134/2026) challenging his discharge in the high-profile liquor policy corruption case. Dated around , the letter—now public and widely reported—cites unassuaged fears of bias, marking a rare litigant-led protest against perceived judicial infirmities.
From Recusal Plea to Conscience-Led Walkout
The controversy stems from the alleged Delhi excise policy scam, where the appealed a trial court's order discharging Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, and others. Justice Sharma, hearing the revision as a , rejected Kejriwal's earlier on , a move that prompted Kejriwal to argue the matter personally before her.
Kejriwal's letter traces the timeline: elevated to the in , Justice Sharma's son was empanelled as a Union Group A counsel for the just five months later in . Her daughter, , followed with empanelments as Government Pleader in the and Group C counsel for the in . RTI data annexed to the recusal plea revealed the son handling 5,904 dockets from -2025—top-tier allocations from a pool of 700 counsel, potentially worth crores at Rs. 9,000 per daily appearance.
Opposing Kejriwal is the , represented by , who personally assigns these panels. News reports highlight how Kejriwal framed this as a direct conflict in a politically charged case pitting against the -led Centre.
Twin Pillars of Apprehension: Ideology and Income
Kejriwal's core grievances are twofold. First, Justice Sharma's "repeated public association" with the 's legal arm, . As avowed ideological foes of -, Kejriwal questioned impartiality, citing former Judge Abhay S. Oka's recent remark that he would decline ABAP invites due to its political leanings.
Second, and "far more serious," the family professional ties.
"Mr Tushar Mehta decides how many and which cases should be assigned to Your Ladyship’s children. If more cases are assigned to them, they get more fees,"
Kejriwal wrote, underscoring financial incentives in a case against the Union via
.
The recusal dismissal order's tone deepened doubts: phrases like "accusations hurled at me," "Judge herself is tainted," and fears of intimidation by a "political litigant" recast his plea as assault, eroding faith in a "clean slate" hearing.
Lessons from Judicial History: Precedents of Prudent Recusal
Kejriwal invokes real-world examples bolstering his stand. Justice Sujoy Paul transferred from in as his son began practice there; Justice Atul Sreedharan did likewise in for his daughter's Indore Bench debut; 's Justice V. Sivaraman Nair sought interstate transfer when his daughter and daughter-in-law joined the local bar. These voluntary steps, he argues, elevated judicial ethics, not diminished them.
The letter emphasizes: " ," a bedrock principle echoing Lord Hewart's dictum, now etched in Indian jurisprudence.
'Satyagraha' Echoes: Bearing the Burden of Belief
Framing his boycott as non-violent conscience, Kejriwal clarifies it's case-specific—not a blanket avoidance.
"I shall not participate in the further proceedings in this matter, either in person or through counsel... I am prepared to bear those consequences."
He reserves
challenges to the recusal order and will appear in unrelated matters before the judge.
Key Observations from the letter:
"In my own conscience, I have now reached a point where I can no longer meaningfully participate in these proceedings without feeling that I am lending my presence to a process in which my faith... stands deeply shaken."
"The principle that , is among the most sacred assurances that a court gives to a citizen in a democracy."
"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."
"How can an ordinary citizen believe that this Hon’ble Bench can rule against the Solicitor-General, the Bharatiya Janata Party, or the Union government, especially in a politically sensitive case like this one?"
Public discourse, as per agency reports, has amplified these concerns beyond legal circles into national drawing rooms, testing institutional trust.
Uncertain Horizons: Proceed ?
Kejriwal requests the letter be recorded, leaving the court to
"proceed further as it may deem fit."
Absent his participation, proceedings could advance
, potentially culminating in orders he plans to contest upstairs. This standoff underscores simmering tensions in politically infused probes, where perception rivals proof. For now, Kejriwal walks free on prior bail/discharge reliefs, but the liquor policy battle endures, with public eyes on Delhi HC's next move and possible
intervention.
