Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has refused to appear before the Delhi High Court bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case. This decision follows the rejection of his plea seeking the judge’s recusal, escalating a standoff between the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor and the judiciary.
In a letter to the judge, Kejriwal stated that his “hope of getting justice” from Justice Swarana Kanta has been “shattered.” He announced that neither he nor his legal representatives would appear in court, opting instead to follow the path of “Gandhiji’s Satyagraha” as a symbolic protest.
Kejriwal maintained that this decision was made by “heeding the voice of my conscience.” However, he asserted that he reserves the right to approach the Supreme Court to appeal the verdict.
The Judge’s Refusal to Recuse
Justice Sharma declined to recuse herself from the excise policy case, dismissing allegations of conflict of interest and bias. In her ruling, she emphasized that her oath to the Constitution dictates that justice does not yield or bend under pressure.
The court noted that a presumption of judicial impartiality exists and must be rebutted with concrete evidence, which the judge found lacking in Kejriwal’s plea. She described the situation as a “Catch-22,” stating that stepping aside without valid grounds would be an “abdication of duty.”
Justice Sharma further cautioned that the “floodgates can’t be opened to sow seeds of mistrust,” stressing the importance of maintaining institutional credibility. The court concluded that no direct nexus had been established between the judge’s external associations and the current case.
Legal Implications and Case Background
The current proceedings stem from a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenge to a trial court order that had previously discharged Arvind Kejriwal and others. The High Court flagged certain findings of the lower court as prima facie erroneous, leading to the fresh proceedings.
Legal experts warn that this non-appearance could lead to serious consequences. Senior Advocate Satish Tamta noted that because the accused typically signs a bond to appear for appeal proceedings following an acquittal, failure to comply could result in the court issuing warrants.
According to Tamta, the court may first issue a bailable warrant, followed by a non-bailable warrant to compel the accused to appear in court. Kejriwal has continued to maintain that the entire case is politically motivated.
Potential Next Steps
The case is likely to enter a more complex legal and constitutional phase as Kejriwal refuses to participate in further hearings before this bench. One possible next step is for Kejriwal to file an appeal with the Supreme Court, as he has already indicated his intention to do so.
Meanwhile, High Court proceedings may continue in his absence. Depending on the court’s reaction to his non-appearance, the judiciary could potentially issue warrants to ensure the legal process moves forward.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Arvind Kejriwal refusing to appear in court?
Kejriwal stated that his hope of receiving justice from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has been shattered. He has decided to follow the path of “Gandhiji’s Satyagraha” as a symbolic protest against the proceedings.
On what grounds did Kejriwal seek the judge’s recusal?
He cited a “grave, bona fide and reasonable apprehension” of bias, pointing to the judge’s alleged participation in events by the RSS-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad and the fact that her children are empanelled as legal counsel for the central government.
What could happen if Kejriwal continues to skip court dates?
Legal experts suggest he could face warrants. Senior Advocate Satish Tamta explained that the court could issue a bailable warrant and subsequently a non-bailable warrant to compel his appearance, especially if a bond was signed during his previous acquittal.
Do you believe symbolic protests are an effective tool when dealing with ongoing judicial proceedings?
