Arvind Kejriwal, national convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party, has formally communicated to the Delhi High Court his decision to abstain from further participation in proceedings arising out of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s excise policy case, currently pending before a single-judge Bench.
In a detailed written communication addressed to Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, Kejriwal articulated a “loss of institutional confidence” in the fairness of the adjudicatory process. While reaffirming his respect for the judiciary, he invoked the cardinal principle of natural justice that justice must not only be done but must also manifestly appear to be done asserting that the present proceedings, in his assessment, fall short of that constitutional standard.
The matter pertains to criminal revision petitions instituted by the CBI assailing a trial court order that had discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, and other accused persons in the alleged excise policy irregularities case. The High Court is presently seized of the question whether such discharge warrants judicial interference.
Kejriwal had earlier moved an application seeking the recusal of Justice Sharma, invoking the doctrine of reasonable apprehension of bias. The grounds urged included prior adverse judicial observations, the judge’s participation in events linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, and the empanelment of her children as government counsel. He had personally advanced arguments in support of the recusal plea.
The recusal application, however, was rejected, with the Court electing to proceed with the matter. In response, Kejriwal, in his letter, expressed reservations regarding the tenor of the order, contending that his plea had been construed as a personal imputation against the Court. He submitted that such observations undermine the litigant’s legitimate right to raise concerns relating to perceived bias without attracting adverse inferences.
Further, Kejriwal reiterated apprehensions of a potential conflict of interest, pointing to the appearance of the Tushar Mehta for the CBI, while noting that the judge’s children, as empanelled government counsel, receive professional briefs routed through the same institutional framework. Citing information obtained under the Right to Information Act, he alleged that such engagements may give rise to pecuniary implications, thereby contributing to a perception of compromised neutrality.
Framing his decision as one grounded in constitutional morality and ethical restraint, Kejriwal stated that continued participation would be inconsistent with his conscience. He characterised his stance as an act of civil resistance inspired by Mahatma Gandhi’s doctrine of satyagraha, undertaken after affording the system an opportunity to rectify what he perceives as a miscarriage of justice.
He acknowledged that his non-participation may entail adverse procedural consequences, including potential prejudice to his legal defence, but affirmed his willingness to bear such outcomes. Notably, he clarified that this position is confined to the present proceedings and analogous matters involving similar concerns, and does not extend to unrelated cases before the same Bench.
Kejriwal further indicated that he is contemplating appellate recourse before the Supreme Court of India against the order declining recusal.
In conclusion, he requested that his communication be taken on record, leaving it to the Court to proceed in accordance with law. He underscored that his objection is not directed at the judicial institution per se, but is confined to the continuation of the present matter before the existing Bench under circumstances that, in his view, raise substantial doubts regarding the appearance of judicial impartiality.
The post Kejriwal declines further participation in CBI Excise Policy proceedings before Delhi High Court bench appeared first on India Legal.