TNI Bureau: A fresh controversy has emerged in the Delhi Excise Policy-related proceedings after AAP national convenor and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal wrote a detailed letter to Delhi High Court Judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, stating that he would no longer participate in further proceedings in Criminal Revision Petition No. 134/2026 due to what he described as a deep and unresolved apprehension regarding impartial justice.
In the letter addressed to Justice Sharma, Kejriwal said his decision was not born out of anger or disrespect, but from “pain, humility, and abiding faith in the judiciary.” He stressed that the issue was larger than his personal case and concerned the faith of ordinary citizens in the fairness of judicial institutions.
Kejriwal referred to his earlier recusal plea, which had sought the judge’s withdrawal from the case on grounds of perceived conflict of interest and apprehension of bias. After the plea was dismissed on April 20, 2026, he said his concerns had only deepened.
He raised two major objections. First, he pointed to Justice Sharma’s repeated public association with the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), which he described as the legal front of the RSS. Given AAP’s ideological opposition to the RSS and the ruling BJP-led dispensation, he questioned whether a politically sensitive case involving him could receive a fully impartial hearing.
Second, he alleged a conflict of interest arising from the professional engagement of the judge’s children on multiple Union Government legal panels. He claimed both were assigned cases by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appears for the opposing side in the matter. Kejriwal further cited RTI documents claiming that the judge’s son had received an unusually high number of government case allocations between 2023 and 2025.
He argued that these circumstances, combined with the language used in the order rejecting his recusal plea, made it impossible for him to believe that justice would not only be done, but also be seen to be done.
Invoking Mahatma Gandhi’s principle of Satyagraha, Kejriwal said he would withdraw from further proceedings “in good conscience,” even if it harmed his legal interests. He said he was prepared to bear the legal consequences of this decision.
At the same time, he clarified that his objection was limited to this matter and should not be seen as a rejection of the judiciary as an institution. He maintained that his faith in the Constitution and the judicial system remained intact and reserved the right to challenge the recusal rejection before the Supreme Court.
The strongly worded letter has added a new political and legal dimension to the already high-profile proceedings, likely to trigger sharp reactions across legal and political circles.
