July 04, 2026 07:00 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
'Why can't citizens protest against the government? They are being made slaves by slapping cases': Bombay HC slams Mumbai Police, quashes activist's externment | 'First he cheats on me...': Siya Goyal's old pub video goes viral amid probe into fiancé Ketan Agarwal's alleged murder | Ronaldo's goal, Ramos' last-gasp winner send Portugal past Croatia, set up Spain clash | India-US trade deal almost done! Piyush Goyal hints at breakthrough | Ram Mandir donation scam: Champat Rai points finger at his own driver | PM Modi welcomes Japanese PM Sanae Takaichi as India-Japan ties enter a new era | 'Not an isolated incident': India slams Pakistan after 125-year-old historic Gurdwara is demolished | Ram Mandir donation theft: Six accused were employed by Varanasi-based security firm, probe reveals | Ayodhya Ram Temple donation theft: Probe says majority of money was allegedly stolen during Kumbh Mela | Commercial LPG price slashed by Rs 183.50 from July 1; check new rates in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai
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.