The BRICS TimesAAP chief Arvind Kejriwal has written a four-page letter to Delhi High Court’s Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refusing to appear in the excise case. He cited her alleged links to an RSS-affiliated body and a potential conflict of interest tied to her children’s government empanelments.
Kejriwal Says He Has Lost All Hope of Fair Hearing
AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal fired off a four-page letter to Delhi High Court Judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday declaring he would no longer appear before her in the CBI liquor policy case. Neither in person, nor through a lawyer.
In the letter, Kejriwal wrote that his decision came “in all humility and with complete respect for judiciary.” He made clear the move was not driven by anger. It was driven by what he described as a shattered hope. “My hope of getting justice from Justice Swarna Kanta is shattered,” he wrote.
The AAP chief said the proceedings before Justice Sharma failed to meet a basic principle that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. He added that the issue at the heart of this letter was “the faith of ordinary citizens in the impartiality of the judicial process.”
The Recusal Plea That Went Nowhere
This entire standoff traces back to a recusal application Kejriwal had filed earlier asking Justice Sharma to step away from the case. He had even argued the application himself in open court. But on April 20, Justice Sharma dismissed the plea and decided to continue hearing the matter.
Kejriwal said the language in that dismissal order hit hard. According to him, the rejection conveyed that his concerns had been treated as “a personal attack upon Your Ladyship and as an assault on the institution itself.” He wrote that this very impression now made it impossible for him to believe he could get an impartial hearing.
“That understanding itself now makes it impossible for me to believe that I can receive a hearing which appears impartial in this Court,” he stated in the letter.
The RSS-Linked Events Argument And What a Former Judge Said
One of Kejriwal’s central concerns was Justice Sharma’s alleged repeated public association with the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad commonly known as ABAP. He described ABAP as “an organisation belonging to the ideological ecosystem of the ruling dispensation” essentially, the RSS’s legal front.
“When Your Ladyship has been frequently attending their programmes, how can I hope to get justice from this Hon’ble Court?” he asked pointedly.
To back this concern, Kejriwal invoked remarks made by former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka. He noted that Justice Oka had publicly stated that he would have declined invitations from ABAP while serving as a sitting judge given the organisation’s political leanings. Kejriwal argued this showed his apprehension was “neither fanciful nor idiosyncratic.”
The viral claims that Justice Sharma had herself said her attendance at RSS events led to her promotions were separately fact-checked and found to be false. The original video showed her speaking at a Law Faculty event at Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, with no connection to RSS.
The Bigger Concern: Judge’s Children on Government Panels
Kejriwal called this the “far more serious issue.” He pointed out that both of Justice Sharma’s children son Ishaan Sharma and daughter Shambhavi Sharma are empanelled as government counsel. Their case briefs come directly from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who also represents the CBI the opposing party in Kejriwal’s case.
Using RTI data, Kejriwal highlighted that Ishaan Sharma received an “extraordinarily high” 5,904 dockets between 2023 and 2025 placing him among the top 10 recipients out of nearly 700 panel counsels combined across the Supreme Court. “Each docket represents an appearance fee of Rs. 9,000/- per day per docket. This is a substantial amount of money running into crores of rupees,” he wrote.
He also flagged the timeline Justice Sharma’s elevation to the Delhi High Court happened in March 2022, and her son’s empanelment as Union’s Group A counsel followed just five months later. By late 2025, both her children held multiple panel positions before the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Gandhian Satyagraha as His Legal Stand
Framing his refusal explicitly in Gandhian terms, Kejriwal wrote that satyagraha requires a citizen who senses injustice to first raise it before the competent authority and only then, if the injustice remains unaddressed, offer quiet, non-violent resistance. “I am fully conscious that by doing so, I may prejudice my own legal interests,” he acknowledged.
“I understand that I may lose the opportunity to advance submissions before this Hon’ble Court and that adverse consequences in law may follow. I am prepared to bear those consequences,” he wrote.
Kejriwal was clear his stance was not against the judiciary as an institution. “My faith in the Constitution of India remains unwavering. My respect for the judiciary remains intact,” he stated. He also reserved the right to challenge the recusal dismissal and the revision petition’s orders before the Supreme Court.
What Happens Now
Kejriwal’s letter ends with a request that it be taken on record and that the court proceed as it deems fit. His refusal to appear means the CBI’s revision petition challenging his acquittal in the excise case could now move forward without his participation.
“My objection is not to the institution of the High Court or the larger judicial system, but only to the continuance of this matter before Your Ladyship under a cloud of grave and unresolved questions and circumstances that have generated grave public doubt in your ability to dispense impartial justice,” he concluded.
