Chief Minister of Delhi Rekha Gupta on Monday targeted her predecessor, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, over his ‘satyagraha’ pledge against Delhi High Court judge Swarna Kanta Sharma, who is hearing a Central Bureau of Investigation review petition against him and others after they were discharged by a trial court in a liquor policy case.
Kejriwal wrote a letter to Justice Sharma after she refused to recuse herself from the case, saying he would not appear before her, either in person or through a lawyer, and described his stance as “satyagraha” or the spirit of non-cooperation, citing the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi.
Gupta described Kejriwal’s stance as a “bad joke”.
Speaking at a press conference in Delhi, CM Gupta wondered whether the allegations against Justice Sharma benefited Kejriwal.
“Kejriwal owner He’s one of those people who say, “We’re lawyers too, we’re witnesses too, we’re judges too.” So what is the need for this judicial system? The way he behaved, saying, ‘I’m not going to court’…the accusations he made to the judge, the questions he asked, ‘Is this appropriate for you?'” she said.
It described him as “the perpetrator, a criminal involved in a liquor scam, with a huge indictment against him,” even though the charges were not worthy of trial by the trial court.
Arvind Kejriwal “Satyagraha” vs. Delhi High Court Judge
Arvind Kejriwal wrote to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Explaining that he will not appear in the excise policy case either in person or through legal representation.
“My hope of getting justice from Justice Swarana Kanta has been shattered,” Kejriwal said in his letter. He added that in response, he decided to follow the path of protest inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, writing: “So I decided to follow Mahatma Gandhi’s path of Satyagraha.”
The AAP leader further said that the move was a personal one and was taken after thinking. “I made the decision to listen to the voice of my conscience,” he wrote.
The development comes after the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Arvind Kejriwal seeking Justice Sharma’s disqualification from hearing the tax policy case.
In his petition, the AAP chief raised concerns over perceived conflict of interest, citing the appointment of the judge’s children as advisors to the central government. He said the situation gave rise to reasonable concerns of bias.
The plea filed by Arvind Kejriwal was rooted in allegations of perceived bias. He argued that Justice Sharma’s participation in events organized by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP) – which he claimed were in line with a particular ideology opposed to the Aam Aadmi Party – raised concerns about impartiality.
Justice Sharma rejected the requests for recusal and made it clear that the perception of a litigant alone cannot be a reason for a judge to recuse himself. As HT previously reported, the judge said that “mere fear” that one would not get relief from the court is not enough to seek recusal. In a strongly worded order, she warned that stepping down in such circumstances would send the wrong signal.
“If this court decides to step down, it would be an act of surrender and a signal that institutions, including judges and the court, can be bent, shaken and changed. Requests to step down are denied,” she ruled.
Sharma added: “Judges are obligated to be disciplined in their positions… Today this is the court, and tomorrow it will be another court.”
Sharma also addressed the nature of the accusations before her, saying that the disqualification file “did not arrive with evidence, but it arrived at my desk with stabs, insinuations and doubts that cast a shadow over my integrity.”
