Sisodia’s letter follows a similar communication by Arvind Kejriwal a day earlier. Referring to it, Sisodia stated, “I have carefully considered the substance of that letter… I find myself in respectful agreement with the stand taken by him, which is based on Mahatma Gandhi's teachings on Satyagraha.”
At the outset, Sisodia clarified that the communication was not intended as a personal attack. “This letter is not intended as an act of disrespect, nor as any personal attack upon Your Ladyship. I write with restraint,” he said.
The former Deputy Chief Minister flagged two key concerns. First, he pointed to the judge’s “repeated public attendance of the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyers' organisation publicly understood to belong to the RSS.”
Second, he raised the issue of “the professional engagement of Your Ladyship's children on multiple Union Government panels, and the resulting appearance of closeness to the very law officers who now appear against me on the other side.”
Referring to the role of the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Sisodia noted that Kejriwal’s letter had already detailed the “professional dependence of your children on Mr. Tushar Mehta who is solely responsible for marking the large number of case dockets to them.”
Addressing the court’s earlier rejection of the recusal plea, Sisodia argued that the issue was not about the right of judges’ children to practise law. “My question was altogether different… when such circumstances exist, what is the duty of the parent-Judge to preserve, protect, and publicly sustain the appearance of impartial justice?” he wrote.
He added that the standard for judicial confidence extends beyond actual wrongdoing. “The standard by which public confidence in courts is sustained is not confined to actual wrongdoing but to situations where surrounding circumstances create a serious appearance of conflict of interest and bias.”
Raising concerns over lack of disclosure, Sisodia questioned whether “there was not, at the very least, a duty on the part of the parent-Judge to disclose these circumstances to the parties at the very threshold,” and whether there was a corresponding obligation on the Solicitor General to place such facts before the court.
After what he described as “much reflection”, Sisodia said he could not continue in the proceedings. “The question before me is therefore a simple one: can I, with honesty, continue to take part in these proceedings…? After much reflection, my answer… I cannot.”
He further stated, “I too shall not participate in further proceedings in this matter before this Hon'ble Court, whether personally or through counsel.”
Invoking Gandhian principles, Sisodia acknowledged the consequences of his decision. “I fully understand that it may prejudice my own interests in law… But I too accept Gandhi ji's principle of Satyagraha and accept that burden.”
Sisodia emphasised that his decision was limited to the present case. “It should not be understood as any general refusal to appear… nor as any general distrust of the judicial institution. My faith in the Constitution and the institution of the Court remains firm.”
At the same time, he maintained that continuing the matter before the present Bench raised serious concerns. “What troubles me is only the continuance of this matter… despite circumstances that… are continuing to generate graver and graver public doubt over Your Ladyship's impartiality.”
The letter concludes with a request that it be taken on record, leaving it to the court to proceed as it deems fit.