Arvind Kejriwal Refuses To Appear Before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Cites Bias And Conflict Of Interest

In a detailed and strongly worded letter, Kejriwal emphasised that his decision was not rooted in “anger” or “disrespect,” but arose from a “painful and inescapable impression” regarding the fairness of the proceedings. “This letter is not written in anger, nor in disrespect… it is written with pain, with humility, and with an abiding faith in the role of judiciary,” he stated.

The letter follows the dismissal of Kejriwal’s earlier plea seeking recusal of the judge. Referring to that order, he wrote: “My well-grounded apprehensions… have not been removed. After the said judgment, I am left with the painful and inescapable impression that what I had urged… was received and answered as a personal attack.”

Kejriwal underscored that the issue at hand was not merely personal but touched upon broader public confidence in the judicial system. “This letter touches upon… the faith of ordinary citizens in the impartiality of the judicial process,” he said, adding that the principle that justice must not only be done but also “be seen to be done” stood at the heart of his concerns.

Detailing the grounds for his apprehension, Kejriwal raised two principal issues. First, he referred to the judge’s alleged “repeated public association” with the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), which he described as part of the “ideological ecosystem of the ruling dispensation.” He questioned: “When Your Ladyship has been frequently attending their programmes, how can I hope to get justice from this Hon’ble Court?”

Second, he alleged a conflict of interest arising from the professional engagements of the judge’s children with the Union government. He pointed out that both were empanelled as government counsel and linked their assignments to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appears for the opposing side in the case. Citing RTI material, Kejriwal claimed that the judge’s son had been assigned “an extraordinarily high number of dockets; 5,904 between 2023 and 2025,” suggesting significant financial implications.

“The apprehension of conflict of interest and bias is neither speculative, nor fanciful. They are instead grave, concrete, and impossible for any fair-minded citizen to ignore,” he asserted.

Kejriwal also took exception to the tone of the recusal order, stating that it portrayed his plea as an “assault on the institution” and an attempt to show that “the Judge herself is tainted.” According to him, this interpretation made it “impossible… to believe that I can receive a hearing which appears impartial.”

Invoking Mahatma Gandhi and the principle of satyagraha, Kejriwal justified his decision to withdraw from the proceedings. “I have decided that I shall not participate… either in person or through counsel… I am prepared to bear those consequences,” he said, acknowledging potential legal setbacks.

At the same time, he clarified that his stance was limited to the present case and should not be construed as a blanket refusal to appear before the judge in other matters.

Reaffirming his faith in the judiciary, Kejriwal concluded: “My faith in the Constitution of India remains unwavering. My respect for the judiciary remains intact… My objection is not to the institution… but only to the continuance of this matter… under a cloud of grave and unresolved questions.”

What has happened so far:

Arvind Kejriwal's recusal case involves a pending criminal revision petition before the Delhi High Court, where he had sought the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma citing apprehensions of bias. Arvind Kejriwal was permitted to argue the recusal plea in person and made detailed submissions before the Court.

The High Court, however, rejected the recusal plea, holding that the grounds raised did not justify withdrawal of the judge and cautioning against allegations that could undermine the institution’s integrity if not substantiated.

Following the hearing, videos of Kejriwal’s courtroom arguments surfaced and were widely circulated on social media, triggering a separate controversy over alleged unauthorised recording and dissemination of court proceedings. The same is under consideration before the High Court.

It is in this backdrop that Kejriwal has now written to the Court expressing his decision to abstain from further participation in the matter.