October 13, 2026 10:25 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Delhi Police de-notifies Jantar Mantar as protest site amid CJP stir over Gyanesh Kumar | 'Gyanesh Kumar will not escape': Rahul Gandhi issues warning amid voting rights row | 'Supreme Court doors open for all': CJI Surya Kant breaks silence on refusing to meet INDIA bloc over Gyanesh Kumar row | 'Undeclared Emer-GenZ': Shashi Tharoor slams Delhi curbs over CJP protests, calls internet shutdown 'most regressive' | ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’, ‘Inquilab Zindabad’: CJP leader Abhijeet Dipke dares Delhi Police to arrest him, says ‘We are not afraid’ | CJP protest crackdown? Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka detained from inside flight | Dhruv Rathee detained ahead of CJP protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as Delhi goes on high alert | ‘Restriction, not complete closure’: Supreme Court questions Delhi shutdown ahead of CJP protest | 'Unwarranted': India hits back at JD Vance over ‘indentured servants’ remark amid US Green Card crackdown | US targets Microsoft, Infosys, Tata in green card crackdown
Kejriwal
AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal boycotts Delhi High Court judge, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Faith in justice shattered’: Kejriwal boycotts Delhi HC judge who refused to recuse

| @indiablooms | Apr 27, 2026, at 03:30 pm

Delhi/IBNS: Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has announced that he will not appear before the Delhi High Court bench led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case, stating that he has lost confidence in the court’s ability to deliver justice.

The decision follows the judge’s refusal to recuse herself from the case, despite objections raised by Kejriwal.

In a letter addressed to Justice Sharma, Kejriwal said he would not pursue the matter before her court, either personally or through legal representation.
He cited adherence to Gandhian principles and stated that the proceedings did not meet the standard that justice must both be done and be seen to be done.
 
He also indicated that he may challenge the decision before the Supreme Court, keeping legal options open despite his decision to boycott the proceedings at the High Court level.
 
Recusal plea rejected

The development comes after Justice Sharma declined Kejriwal’s request to step aside from the case. 
 
In her order, she emphasised judicial independence and stated that decisions would be made without bias or external pressure.
 
The court underlined that allegations of prejudice must be supported by substantive evidence and noted that such evidence had not been established in this instance.
Allegations of conflict of interest
 
Kejriwal had sought recusal on grounds of alleged conflict of interest, claiming that the judge’s family members, who serve as panel lawyers for the central government, had professional associations with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is appearing in the case.
 
He also raised concerns regarding the judge’s alleged association with certain legal forums. However, the court rejected these claims, stating that no direct connection to the case had been demonstrated.
 
Legal implications of non-appearance
 
Legal experts have indicated that failure to appear in court proceedings could lead to consequences under procedural law. 
 
They noted that an accused person, after being granted relief, is typically required to comply with court directives during appeal proceedings.
 
Non-compliance may prompt the court to issue warrants to ensure attendance, beginning with bailable warrants and potentially escalating further.
 
Delhi excise policy case

The case originates from a challenge filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against a trial court order that had earlier discharged Kejriwal and others in the Delhi excise policy matter.

The High Court had taken note of certain findings in the lower court’s ruling and initiated further proceedings after issuing notice on the agency’s plea.
 
Kejriwal’s decision to abstain from the proceedings marks a significant shift in the case’s trajectory, as the matter continues before the High Court in his absence.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.