Shattered faith: Kejriwal abstains from the Delhi excise case judge's recusal


Arvind Kejriwal has taken an unusual legal and political stance by declaring that he will no longer appear before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the ongoing excise policy case. In a formal letter addressed to the judge, he stated that he has lost faith in her ability to ensure a fair hearing and deliver justice, framing his decision as one guided by conscience rather than strategy.

Kejriwal explained that he would follow the path of Gandhian protest, invoking the principle of Satyagraha to justify his refusal to participate in proceedings before the same bench. He argued that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, and claimed that the current proceedings do not meet that standard in his view. This marks a shift from conventional courtroom engagement to a protest-oriented approach within an active judicial process.

His decision comes shortly after the judge declined his request to recuse herself from the case. Kejriwal had alleged a conflict of interest, pointing to professional associations involving the judge’s children and the central government’s legal representatives, including Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. However, the court rejected these claims, emphasising judicial independence and stating that no concrete evidence of bias had been presented.

Despite stepping away from the High Court proceedings, Kejriwal has kept his legal options open. In his letter, he made it clear that he retains the right to challenge the developments and any adverse decision before the Supreme Court of India. This indicates that while he is disengaging from the current forum, he is not withdrawing from the legal battle altogether.

Legal experts have cautioned that refusing to appear in court could carry consequences. Since accused individuals are typically bound by legal obligations to attend proceedings, continued absence may prompt the court to issue a summons or warrants to compel appearance. This creates a complex situation where a political protest intersects with procedural law, potentially escalating the matter further.


 

buttons=(Accept !) days=(20)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. Learn More
Accept !