Kejriwal boycotts liquor policy case hearing, cites loss of faith in judge

In a significant development, Delhi's former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has announced his decision to boycott further proceedings in the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) liquor policy case before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court. This declaration comes after Justice Sharma's dismissal of Kejriwal's application seeking her recusal from the case, which was based on allegations of bias and apprehension of an unfair hearing [1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 15, 16, 20]. Kejriwal conveyed his decision through a detailed letter addressed to Justice Sharma, stating that his choice was made "in all humility and with complete respect for the judiciary" but stemmed from a conclusion that the proceedings did not uphold the fundamental principle of justice being seen to be done [1, 5]. He explicitly mentioned that this step was not an act of anger or disrespect but a concern for public faith in the impartiality of the judicial process [1, 7]. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader declared his willingness to face any adverse legal consequences arising from his boycott, framing it as a "conscientious act" and an act of "Gandhian satyagraha" inspired by Mahatma Gandhi's principles [1, 2, 4, 8, 13, 15, 20]. The recusal plea, which was dismissed by Justice Sharma on April 20, 2026, had cited several grounds, including the judge's previous orders denying relief to Kejriwal in related matters, her participation in events of the RSS-linked Adhivakta Parishad, and her children's empanelment as Central Government Counsel [1, 10, 11, 17]. Kejriwal had argued that these factors created a reasonable apprehension of bias and a conflict of interest, necessitating her recusal to maintain public confidence in the judiciary [2, 17]. However, Justice Sharma rejected the plea, stating that allegations of bias were unsupported by material evidence and that a litigant cannot be allowed to "judge a judge" based on mere perceptions or apprehensions [5, 13, 17]. The judge emphasized that the courtroom cannot become a "theatre of perception" and that judges cannot recuse themselves merely to satisfy a litigant's apprehension without substantiated grounds [2, 5, 17]. Following the dismissal of his recusal application, Kejriwal's letter to Justice Sharma indicated that his refusal to appear is confined to this specific case and similar matters involving the Union Government, the Bharatiya Janata Party, or the RSS. He stated that he would continue to appear before the judge in other unrelated matters [1]. He also reserved the right to challenge the order rejecting his recusal application before the Supreme Court [1, 2, 5, 13, 15]. The genesis of this legal standoff can be traced back to the trial court's discharge of Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others on February 27, 2026, in the alleged liquor policy corruption case, with the court heavily criticizing the CBI's chargesheet [3, 21]. The CBI subsequently filed revision petitions against this discharge order, which were assigned to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's bench at the Delhi High Court [1, 4, 6, 9, 18]. Kejriwal had previously approached the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court Chief Justice seeking a transfer of the case from Justice Sharma's bench, citing similar apprehensions about impartiality, but these requests were denied [6, 18]. The legal proceedings have seen Kejriwal appear in person to argue his recusal application, highlighting the gravity with which he viewed the matter [10, 11]. The situation has drawn significant attention, with legal experts noting the gravity of a political figure publicly questioning a sitting judge's impartiality [7]. Supporters of Kejriwal argue that raising concerns about transparency is within his rights, while critics accuse him of undermining the judiciary [7]. The case continues to be a focal point in the ongoing political and legal discourse surrounding corruption allegations in India.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest