Manish Sisodia has escalated the legal standoff in the excise policy case by declaring that he and his legal team will boycott proceedings before Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, citing a complete loss of faith in the court’s ability to deliver justice. His move mirrors the earlier position taken by Arvind Kejriwal, who also announced that he would not participate in hearings before the same judge and would instead adopt a path he described as “satyagraha.”
In his letter, Sisodia stated that he no longer had confidence in receiving a fair hearing and claimed he had no option but to withdraw from the proceedings entirely. He echoed Kejriwal’s allegations of conflict of interest, pointing to the professional association between the judge’s children, who are empanelled as lawyers for the central government, and Tushar Mehta, who is representing the prosecution side in the case. According to Sisodia, this connection undermines the perception of impartiality that is fundamental to judicial proceedings.
The development follows Justice Sharma’s recent refusal to recuse herself from the case, where she firmly rejected allegations of bias and emphasised the principle of judicial independence. In her ruling, she stated that her duty is to the Constitution and that justice cannot be influenced by external pressure. She also noted that claims of bias must be supported by concrete evidence, which she found lacking in the arguments presented by Kejriwal.
Both Kejriwal and Sisodia have framed their boycott as a matter of principle, arguing that justice must not only be delivered but also be visibly fair. At the same time, they have indicated that they may approach the Supreme Court of India to challenge the High Court’s decisions. However, legal experts have cautioned that refusing to appear in court proceedings could invite coercive measures, including the issuance of warrants to compel their presence.
The case itself stems from a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging a lower court order that had discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and others in the Delhi excise policy matter. The High Court has already indicated that certain findings of the trial court may be prima facie flawed, which has led to renewed scrutiny and ongoing proceedings that now face an added layer of legal and constitutional complexity due to the boycott.
