Arvind Kejriwal Writes to Delhi HC Judge, Opts Out of Proceedings Over ‘Conflict’ Concerns

Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal has written to Delhi High Court judge Swarana Kanta Sharma, stating that he will not appear in the excise policy case before her, either in person or through legal representation, the party said on Monday.

In his letter, Kejriwal expressed a lack of confidence in the judge, saying, “My hope of getting justice from Justice Swarana Kanta has been broken. Therefore, I have decided to follow Mahatma Gandhi’s path of Satyagraha.”

He said the decision was guided by his conscience and indicated that he may approach the Supreme Court of India to challenge any ruling.

“I am prepared to bear those consequences. That is the burden which every conscientious act of Gandhian satyagraha must bear, and my conscience leaves me no other dignified course. I cannot make peace with my soul by participating in proceedings marked, in my respectful view, by so grave an appearance of conflict, as though all were well. To do so would be a betrayal of my conscience, a disservice to the dignity of the judiciary, and an injustice to the people of India who still believe that courts are the last refuge against the overreach of power,” he wrote.

“Justice Sujoy Paul sought transfer from the Madhya Pradesh High Court 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,” he said.

He further added, “A look back at history and one would find the case of Justice V. Sivaraman Nair of the Kerala High Court who had worked as a junior of the legendary Supreme Court judge, Justice Krishna Iyer. It is said that as soon as Justice Nair’s daughter and daughter-in-law started practising in the Kerala High Court, he requested he be transferred to another State.”

Kejriwal also referred to past instances of judges seeking transfers in situations involving potential conflicts of interest.

“A litigant can perhaps live with an adverse order. What is far more difficult to accept is a judgment whose language conveys that the litigant’s plea has been seen as a challenge to the Judge’s dignity, oath, and institutional standing,” he wrote.

In the letter, the AAP leader also reflected on the broader issue of judicial perception.