Won’t participate in CBI’s challenge before justice Sharma, says Kejriwal; cites lack of impartial hearing

IN a alphabetic character to justness Swarana Kanta Sharma of the new delhi heights margaret court, former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal on Monday said that neither he nor his counsel will participate in further proceedings before the judge in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s appeal against his discharge in the excise policy case, saying that he doubted he could receive an “impartial hearing” in the court. This comes a week after his plea seeking the judge’s recusal was dismissed.In a four-page letter, that he also shared on X, the AAP national convenor said that, after the dismissal of his application, he had carefully reflected on the options available to him. Saying that his “well-grounded apprehensions” remained unresolved, he added the judgment left him with the impression that his legitimate concerns had been perceived as a personal attack on the judge and an “assault” to the institution itself.“That understanding itself now makes it impossible for me to believe that I can receive a hearing which appears impartial in this court,” the letter said.Also Read | Arvind Kejriwal's ‘thanedar’ jibe as he blames PM Modi for PSA detention of J&K AAP MLA Mehraj Malik“The judgment speaks of ‘accusations hurled at me’, of a litigant attempting to prove that ‘the Judge herself is tainted’, and of the need to avoid sending a signal that the Court can be ‘intimidated by a political litigant’. Those are not, with respect, answers to the case I had brought. They show me that my plea of apprehension has been judicially understood as a personal and institutional affront. And once that has happened, how do I expect that I would be heard on a wholly clean slate.”The court is hearing a the CBI’s challenge to a trial court order that discharged Kejriwal, former deputy CM Manish Sisodia, and 21 others in the excise police case. Kejriwal had filed several applications seeking the Justice Sharma’s recusal over her repeated public association with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)’s legal front, the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), as well as her children being empanelled with the Centre’s legal panel, with one of them allegedly receiving assignments from the law officer contesting the CBI’s appeal.On April 20, the judge dismissed the applications, holding there was no “demonstrable cause” for recusal and warning that stepping aside on the basis of perceived bias would set a disturbing precedent. In her verdict, the court observed that a mere apprehension of not receiving relief cannot justify recusal, as it risks allowing litigants to influence the adjudicatory process.The judge had granted a last opportunity to Kejriwal and others to file their replies and fixed April 29 and 30 for hearing the CBI’s appeal.Besides the letter, Kejriwal also posted a video on X. “My hope of receiving justice from justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ji has been shattered. Listening to the voice of my conscience, adhering to the principles of Gandhi ji, and with the spirit of Satyagraha, I have decided that I will not appear before her in this case and will not present any arguments either,” he said.In his letter, the AAP chief also referred to instances where sitting high court judges across the country had recused themselves from matters in which their children or relatives, who were part of government legal panels, were involved.“For instance, justice Sujoy Paul sought transfer from the Madhya Pradesh HC in 2024 because his son was practising in the same high court. Similarly, justice Atul Sreedharan from the same high court sought transfer in 2023 because his elder daughter was to begin practice before courts within the same State and the Indore Bench of that high court,” the letter said.He said that in all three comparable instances involving issues similar to those raised in Justice Sharma’s case, the judges chose to recuse themselves to ensure that justice remained above any shadow of doubt.In contrast, Kejriwal argued that the present matter went beyond mere apprehension and there was “clear evidence” that both of the judge’s children were practising before the same HC on government panels, with one receiving a substantial number of cases from the same law officer now appearing before the court in a “politically sensitive matter”.