Sisodia boycotts Delhi HC hearing in excise case, citing bias concerns

Senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia has formally communicated to the Delhi High Court that he will not be appearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the ongoing excise policy case. This decision mirrors that of AAP chief and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who had previously announced a similar boycott of proceedings before Justice Sharma. Sisodia's decision stems from what he describes as unresolved doubts regarding Justice Sharma's impartiality in the case. In a letter addressed to the judge, Sisodia articulated his concerns, which primarily revolve around Justice Sharma's repeated public engagements with the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), an organization with alleged links to the government. Additionally, he pointed to the professional engagement of Justice Sharma's children as government panel counsel, suggesting that this creates an appearance of proximity to government law officers who are appearing in the case against him. Sisodia emphasized that his concerns are not about the right of her children to practice law, but rather about the "appearance of impartial justice" and the duty of a judge to "preserve, protect, and publicly sustain" it, especially when circumstances might lead to a perception of conflict of interest. This stance comes after Justice Sharma had on April 20 rejected the recusal pleas filed by both Kejriwal, Sisodia, and other accused in the case. The judge had then stated that politicians should not be allowed to sow seeds of mistrust and that the application for recusal amounted to putting the judiciary on trial. In response to the judge's dismissal of the recusal pleas, Sisodia stated in his letter that his conscience left him with no other alternative but to follow the path of 'Satyagraha,' a principle advocated by Mahatma Gandhi. He clarified that his decision is specific to this excise policy case and should not be construed as a general distrust of the judicial institution or a refusal to appear before Justice Sharma in other matters. The excise policy case itself originated in 2022 when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR alleging manipulation of the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22 to favor certain liquor licensees. The probe agency claimed that AAP leaders received kickbacks due to this alleged manipulation, leading to further investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). A trial court had initially discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 22 other accused in February 2026. However, the CBI challenged this order, leading to the case being heard by Justice Sharma. Legal experts have indicated that the court may proceed with the hearing by appointing an amicus curiae (friend of the court) to assist in the case, even in the absence of the accused or their counsel. The article also highlights the broader political context, with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) engaging in a war of words over the issue. The BJP has accused the AAP of launching a "malicious propaganda campaign" against the judiciary, while the AAP has defended its leaders' actions as raising "reasonable apprehension" about the fairness of the proceedings. The decision by Kejriwal and Sisodia to boycott the court proceedings has raised questions about potential contempt of court, though legal experts suggest the court has mechanisms to proceed. The core of the dispute lies in the perception of bias, with Sisodia, like Kejriwal, emphasizing that justice must not only be done but also be "seen to be done." The decision to invoke Satyagraha signifies a move from legal recourse to a form of moral protest, underscoring the gravity of their concerns about judicial impartiality in this high-profile case. The news indicates a significant development in the ongoing legal battles involving AAP leaders, potentially impacting the future course of the excise policy case proceedings. The situation remains fluid, with the Delhi High Court expected to decide on the next steps, possibly involving the appointment of an amicus curiae. The public and legal fraternity are keenly watching how this standoff between the accused and the judiciary unfolds, and its implications for the broader Indian judicial system. The immediate next steps will likely be determined by the High Court in its upcoming hearing, scheduled for April 29 and 30, for hearing the CBI's appeal on merits. The court's decision on how to proceed in the absence of the accused parties will be crucial.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest