‘I do not take this lightly…’: What Kejriwal said in 4-page letter boycotting judge in excise case
"When I appeared before Your Ladyship to argue my case, the question in my heart was simple: Will I get justice?" said Arvind Kejriwal in his letter.
- Apr 27, 2026,
- Updated Apr 27, 2026 2:44 PM IST
Arvind Kejriwal has written to Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stating he will not appear in the excise case, either personally or through a lawyer, the Aam Aadmi Party said on Monday. In a four-page letter, Kejriwal cited what he called a "grave miscarriage of justice" and "serious and unreconciled" concerns in the matter as reasons for his decision.
Kejriwal said he was withdrawing from further proceedings before Justice Sharma while reserving the right to approach the Supreme Court against her decision. He added that he did not take the step lightly but now believed it was "impossible to receive an impartial hearing" in her court.
"I have decided that I shall not participate in the further proceedings in this matter, either in person or through counsel. I do not take this step lightly," Kejriwal wrote. He emphasised that "justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done", calling it one of the most sacred assurances a court gives to a citizen in a democracy. He said this assurance could not be dishonoured by asking a citizen to ignore what "anyone can plainly see" in a case like this.
The letter also referred to the principles of Satyagraha and the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi. Kejriwal said his intention was to strengthen the judiciary and prevent its weakening. He added that he had given the authority an opportunity to consider and correct what he saw as a grave miscarriage of justice.
ALSO READ | He hosted Kejriwal over a year, then defected: Ashok Mittal's break with AAP
Referring to his earlier plea seeking Justice Sharma's recusal, which was rejected on April 20, Kejriwal said the plea had been interpreted as a personal attack. "After the said judgment, I am left with the painful and inescapable impression that what I had urged as a lawful plea of apprehension was received and answered as a personal attack upon Your Ladyship and as an assault on the institution itself," he wrote. He added that these were not answers to the case he had brought and that his plea of apprehension was judicially understood as a personal and institutional affront.
Kejriwal repeated two grounds cited in his earlier recusal plea. He referred to Justice Sharma's repeated public association with the RSS's legal front, the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, which he described as part of the ideological ecosystem of the ruling dispensation. He also wrote that Justice Sharma's children are professionally engaged on multiple advocates' panels of the Union government, which is the opposite party in this case.
He said his experience during the proceedings had raised broader concerns about public trust in the judiciary, even as he maintained respect for the institution. "When I appeared before Your Ladyship to argue my case, the question in my heart was simple: Will I get justice? Today, with the deepest respect, I must say that the same question has become graver and deeper in my conscience," he wrote. He added that the case had become a matter of widespread public discussion not just in legal and political circles but also in homes across the country.
Addressing possible criticism, Kejriwal said his remarks should not be seen as being against the judiciary. He wrote that he had personally received relief from the courts, including orders of bail and the present discharge. "Today, I walk free because of the judiciary. Let there exist no figment of imagination that my present stand is against the institution," he said. He added that his respect for the judiciary remained intact and that he had "unwavering faith" in the Constitution of India.
Kejriwal said his objection was not to the High Court or the larger judicial system, but to the continuance of this matter before Justice Sharma amid what he called grave and unresolved questions that had generated public doubt about impartial justice. He said his "personal inability" was confined to this matter alone and that he would continue to appear in cases where such concerns did not arise, including matters in which the solicitor general did not appear and matters unconnected with the Union government, the BJP or the RSS.
He added that he had taken the decision by listening to the voice of his conscience and was prepared to bear the consequences. "I may prejudice my own legal interests. I understand that I may lose the opportunity to advance submissions before this Hon'ble Court and that adverse consequences in law may follow. I am prepared to bear those consequences," Kejriwal wrote. He also said he would reserve the right to move the Supreme Court against Justice Sharma's decision.
Arvind Kejriwal has written to Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stating he will not appear in the excise case, either personally or through a lawyer, the Aam Aadmi Party said on Monday. In a four-page letter, Kejriwal cited what he called a "grave miscarriage of justice" and "serious and unreconciled" concerns in the matter as reasons for his decision.
Kejriwal said he was withdrawing from further proceedings before Justice Sharma while reserving the right to approach the Supreme Court against her decision. He added that he did not take the step lightly but now believed it was "impossible to receive an impartial hearing" in her court.
"I have decided that I shall not participate in the further proceedings in this matter, either in person or through counsel. I do not take this step lightly," Kejriwal wrote. He emphasised that "justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done", calling it one of the most sacred assurances a court gives to a citizen in a democracy. He said this assurance could not be dishonoured by asking a citizen to ignore what "anyone can plainly see" in a case like this.
The letter also referred to the principles of Satyagraha and the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi. Kejriwal said his intention was to strengthen the judiciary and prevent its weakening. He added that he had given the authority an opportunity to consider and correct what he saw as a grave miscarriage of justice.
ALSO READ | He hosted Kejriwal over a year, then defected: Ashok Mittal's break with AAP
Referring to his earlier plea seeking Justice Sharma's recusal, which was rejected on April 20, Kejriwal said the plea had been interpreted as a personal attack. "After the said judgment, I am left with the painful and inescapable impression that what I had urged as a lawful plea of apprehension was received and answered as a personal attack upon Your Ladyship and as an assault on the institution itself," he wrote. He added that these were not answers to the case he had brought and that his plea of apprehension was judicially understood as a personal and institutional affront.
Kejriwal repeated two grounds cited in his earlier recusal plea. He referred to Justice Sharma's repeated public association with the RSS's legal front, the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, which he described as part of the ideological ecosystem of the ruling dispensation. He also wrote that Justice Sharma's children are professionally engaged on multiple advocates' panels of the Union government, which is the opposite party in this case.
He said his experience during the proceedings had raised broader concerns about public trust in the judiciary, even as he maintained respect for the institution. "When I appeared before Your Ladyship to argue my case, the question in my heart was simple: Will I get justice? Today, with the deepest respect, I must say that the same question has become graver and deeper in my conscience," he wrote. He added that the case had become a matter of widespread public discussion not just in legal and political circles but also in homes across the country.
Addressing possible criticism, Kejriwal said his remarks should not be seen as being against the judiciary. He wrote that he had personally received relief from the courts, including orders of bail and the present discharge. "Today, I walk free because of the judiciary. Let there exist no figment of imagination that my present stand is against the institution," he said. He added that his respect for the judiciary remained intact and that he had "unwavering faith" in the Constitution of India.
Kejriwal said his objection was not to the High Court or the larger judicial system, but to the continuance of this matter before Justice Sharma amid what he called grave and unresolved questions that had generated public doubt about impartial justice. He said his "personal inability" was confined to this matter alone and that he would continue to appear in cases where such concerns did not arise, including matters in which the solicitor general did not appear and matters unconnected with the Union government, the BJP or the RSS.
He added that he had taken the decision by listening to the voice of his conscience and was prepared to bear the consequences. "I may prejudice my own legal interests. I understand that I may lose the opportunity to advance submissions before this Hon'ble Court and that adverse consequences in law may follow. I am prepared to bear those consequences," Kejriwal wrote. He also said he would reserve the right to move the Supreme Court against Justice Sharma's decision.