Satyagraha of Gandhiji: Kejriwal refuses to appear before Delhi HC
text_fields
New Delhi: A fresh confrontation has emerged between AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal and the Delhi High Court, after he declared that he would not appear before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in an ongoing case, escalating tensions over alleged judicial bias, the Indian Express reported.
“I have lost hope of getting justice from Justice Swarana Kanta. Therefore, I have decided to follow the path of Satyagraha as shown by Mahatma Gandhi…,” TIE quoted Kejriwal from his communication.
The development follows a February 27 trial court order that discharged Kejriwal and 22 others in the excise policy case. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) subsequently challenged the decision through a revision plea, which came up before Justice Sharma, who handles criminal matters involving MPs and MLAs. Against this backdrop, Kejriwal has taken an unprecedented step, communicating his refusal to participate in proceedings before the judge.
In a detailed communication running into several pages, Kejriwal indicated that he no longer has confidence in receiving a fair hearing from the court and has chosen to adopt a protest stance inspired by non-violent resistance. At the same time, he signalled that he may approach the Supreme Court to challenge any adverse ruling, keeping legal options open even as he distances himself from the current proceedings.
This move comes days after Justice Sharma declined requests from Kejriwal and several co-accused to step aside from the case. Among those who had sought her recusal were former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, ex-MLA Durgesh Pathak and former AAP communications in-charge Vijay Nair. The court had dismissed the pleas, noting that the allegations raised did not provide substantive grounds and warning that recusal under such circumstances would undermine judicial responsibility.
Kejriwal had argued that there were reasonable grounds to suspect bias, pointing to the pace at which certain politically sensitive cases were being heard. He also raised concerns linked to perceived political alignment and social media activity, suggesting a potential conflict of interest.
The standoff now places the judiciary and a prominent political leader on a collision course, with implications that could extend beyond the case itself.