Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia has followed AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal’s path of “satyagraha”, writing to Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma that neither he nor his lawyers will appear in court to argue his case in the excise policy matter. In the letter, Sisodia said he has lost faith in Justice Sharma and has no option left but to resort to satyagraha.
He also wrote that he has no hope of justice from Justice Sharma, claiming that “the future of her children lies in the hands of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.”
In his letter to Justice Sharma on Monday, Kejriwal alleged a conflict of interest, stating that her children, who work as panel lawyers for the central government, have professional links with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is appearing against him in the case.
"I have written the following letter to Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, informing her that pursuing Gandhian principles of Satyagraha, it won’t be possible for me to pursue this case in her court, either in person or through counsel," he wrote.
Kejriwal said he would not appear before Justice Sharma in the excise policy case, stating that her decision to continue hearing the matter amounts to a “grave miscarriage of justice.”
Both letters from Kejriwal and Sisodia came days after Justice Sharma refused his request to recuse herself from the case.
Kejriwal said he would neither appear in the case personally nor through a lawyer before the judge. He also said he was keeping his legal options open and reserved the right to move the Supreme Court against Justice Sharma's order. Legal experts, however, said his non-appearance could lead to coercive steps, including warrants.
"I have taken this difficult decision after coming to the clear conclusion that the proceedings being conducted in her court do not, in any manner, satisfy the fundamental principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done," he said.
Kejriwal further said, "I have taken this decision by heeding the voice of my conscience," and added, "I reserve the right to approach the Supreme Court to appeal against Justice Swarana Kanta's verdict."
Kejriwal's decision followed Justice Sharma's refusal to step aside from the excise policy case. Rejecting his allegations of bias and conflict of interest, the court stressed judicial independence and said there was no basis to conclude that the proceedings would not be impartial.
Pronouncing her order, Justice Sharma said, "My oath is to the Constitution. My oath has taught me that justice does not bend under pressure. Justice does not yield to any pressure. I will decide and adjudicate fearlessly without any bias. I will not recuse from this case."
The judge said judicial impartiality is presumed and that such a presumption can be displaced only by concrete evidence, which she said was absent in Kejriwal’s plea.
She also warned against weakening institutional credibility, saying, “the floodgates can’t be opened to sow seeds of mistrust.” Describing the situation as a “Catch-22,” she said either recusal or refusal could attract criticism, and added that stepping aside without valid grounds would amount to an “abdication of duty.”
In seeking recusal, Kejriwal had cited what he described as a “grave, bona fide and reasonable apprehension” of bias. He referred to the judge’s alleged participation in events organised by the RSS-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad and her children being employed as legal counsel for the central government. The court rejected these grounds, saying no direct nexus had been shown between those factors and the case before it.
The matter arises from a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenge to a trial court order that had earlier discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and several others in the excise policy case.
The High Court had issued notice on the CBI’s plea and said some findings of the lower court appeared prima facie erroneous, leading it to examine the matter further.
Source: India Today