Arvind Kejriwal has declared that he will not appear before Justice Swarnkanta Sharma in the Delhi excise policy case and will not present any arguments before her — invoking the spirit of Gandhi’s Satyagraha and the voice of his conscience as the basis for his decision. The statement comes after the Delhi High Court rejected his plea seeking the judge’s recusal from the matter.

“My hope of receiving justice from Justice Swarnkanta Sharma Ji has been shattered. Listening to the voice of my conscience, adhering to the principles of Gandhi Ji, and with the spirit of Satyagraha, I have decided that I will not appear before her in this case and will not present any arguments either,” Kejriwal said.

The Case and What Led Here

The Delhi High Court rejected Kejriwal’s plea seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from the Delhi excise policy case. The case relates to the CBI’s challenge to a trial court order that discharged Kejriwal and other accused in the alleged liquor policy irregularities.

The discharge order came on February 27, 2026, with the trial court noting that the evidence adduced in the chargesheets did not raise “grave suspicions” against the accused. However, in a challenge to the order by the CBI, Justice Sharma noted that the discharge order was prima facie erroneous — leading Kejriwal to file the recusal plea.

On April 13, 2026, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma heard arguments in the recusal petition filed by Kejriwal along with a few other accused. Arguing in person, Kejriwal contended that the previous orders passed and the court’s conduct in the present revision petition raise reasonable apprehensions regarding a fair and unbiased hearing. He provided ten specific reasons for these apprehensions.

Kejriwal’s Ten Grounds for Recusal

Among his key arguments was that the judge’s children were empanelled as lawyers for the central government and received work from the Solicitor General, who represents the CBI in the case.

Kejriwal also argued that when Justice Sharma dealt with his bail application in the excise duty case and his challenge to arrest previously, the orders were so conclusive that he felt the court had “almost declared him guilty” — revealing a preconceived notion in the mind of the presiding judge. He further argued that the distinctly expeditious manner in which the case was heard indicated bias, and that earlier strongly worded orders against him in similar circumstances constitute reasonable grounds for fearing a potentially prejudicial order.

What the Court Said

The judgment underlined a larger principle that judicial independence cannot be questioned lightly. Justice Sharma noted that allowing such pleas without solid grounds could open the floodgates for litigants to seek recusal based on mere suspicion. She also made it clear that a judge’s integrity cannot be judged through unverified claims or indirect associations.

With the recusal plea dismissed, the main case will now proceed before the same bench. The High Court has already listed the matter for further hearing.

What Kejriwal’s Decision Means Legally

Kejriwal’s declaration that he will not appear before Justice Sharma is an unusual and high-risk legal strategy. In Indian law, a litigant cannot simply refuse to participate in court proceedings — the court can proceed ex parte, meaning it can hear arguments from the other side and pass orders in the absence of the non-appearing party. An ex parte order in a criminal revision petition challenging a discharge could have serious consequences for Kejriwal and his co-accused.

The invocation of Satyagraha — Mahatma Gandhi’s principle of non-violent non-cooperation as a form of moral protest against an unjust system — is a political statement as much as a legal one. It signals that Kejriwal is choosing to frame his non-participation as a principled act of conscience rather than a tactical legal decision, elevating the dispute from a procedural disagreement to a moral stand on judicial impartiality.

The outcome of the case remains significant, as it will determine whether the discharge of Kejriwal and 22 others in the excise policy matter stands or is set aside. If the discharge is set aside, Kejriwal and his co-accused would face trial in the liquor policy case — a development with significant political and legal consequences for the AAP leader.

Disclaimer: This article is based on court proceedings and published reports. All legal proceedings are subject to judicial determination. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Add us as preferred source on Google