In a letter to Justice Suwarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court, former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Monday said neither he nor his lawyer would participate in further proceedings before the judge in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) appeal against his removal in the tax policy case, saying he doubted he could get an “impartial hearing” in court. This comes a week after his petition seeking the judge’s removal was rejected.
In a four-page letter, also shared on X, the AAP’s national convener said that after his application was rejected, he carefully considered his options. He said his “well-founded concerns” remained unresolved, and added that the ruling left him with the impression that his legitimate concerns had been viewed as a personal attack on the judge and an “assault” on the institution itself.
“This very understanding makes it impossible for me now to believe that I can have an apparently impartial hearing in this court,” the letter said.
Read also | Arvind Kejriwal jibes ‘thanedar’ as he blames PM Modi for PSA detention of J&K AAP MLA Maharaj Malik
“The judgment speaks of ‘accusations against me’, of a litigant trying to prove that ‘the judge herself is tainted’, and of the need to avoid sending a signal that the court could be ‘intimidated by a political litigant’. These are not answers, with respect, to the case I have raised. They show me that my request for arrest was judicially understood as a personal and institutional affront. And once that happens, how can I expect to do so? They will be heard on a completely clean slate.”
The court is hearing the CBI’s appeal against the lower court’s order that removed Kejriwal, former MP CM Manish Sisodia and 21 others in the excise police case. Kejriwal has filed several applications seeking disqualification of Justice Sharma over her repeated public association with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s (RSS) legal front, the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), as well as the appointment of her children to the Centre’s legal committee, one of whom allegedly received assignments from the law officer challenging the CBI appeal.
On April 20, the judge denied the requests, holding that there was “no clear reason” for recusal, and warning that recusal based on perceived bias would set a troubling precedent. The court noted in its ruling that the mere fear of not receiving compensation cannot justify recusal, as it risks allowing litigants to influence the judicial process.
The judge had given a final opportunity to Kejriwal and others to submit their responses and fixed April 29 and 30 for hearing the CBI’s appeal.
Along with the letter, Kejriwal also posted a video on
In his letter, the AAP chief also referred to instances where Supreme Court judges across the country have recused themselves from matters involving their children or relatives, who were part of government statutory bodies.
“For example, Justice Sujoy Paul sought transfer from the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2024 because his son was practicing in the same high court. Likewise, Justice Atul Sreedharan from the same high court sought transfer in 2023 because his elder daughter was to start practicing before courts within the same state and the Indore bench of that high court,” it said.
He said that in all the three similar cases involving issues similar to those raised in Justice Sharma’s case, the judges chose to recuse themselves to ensure that justice remains beyond any shadow of doubt.
On the other hand, Kejriwal said the current matter went beyond mere arrest and there was “clear evidence” that both the judge’s sons were practicing before the same SC, with one of them receiving a large number of cases from the same legal officer who is now appearing before the court in a “politically sensitive matter”.
