New Delhi – Something very unusual happened on April 27, 2026. Arvind Kejriwal, former Chief Minister of Delhi and national head of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), announced that he would not appear before a sitting Delhi High Court judge — not in person, and not even through his lawyers. In a four-page letter addressed to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Kejriwal said that his hope of getting justice from her court had been “shattered.” He invoked the principles of Mahatma Gandhi and called his decision an act of Satyagraha.
This move has sent shock waves through the legal and political world. Some people are calling it a brave stand for the principle that justice must not just be done but must also be seen to be done. Others are calling it a dangerous form of “judge shopping” — a way of pressuring the judiciary. And legal experts are quietly warning that this decision could badly hurt Kejriwal’s own legal interests.
To understand what is really going on, we need to go back to where this story began — with a court order last February that cleared Kejriwal’s name, and a government agency that refused to accept that verdict.
The Beginning: A Trial Court Clears Kejriwal in the Excise Case
On February 27, 2026, Special Judge Jitendra Singh at the Rouse Avenue District Courts in New Delhi passed a detailed 598-page order in the Delhi Excise Policy case. The court discharged all 23 accused persons in the case. This included Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 others.
The trial court, in very clear words, said that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had failed to establish even a basic case against the accused persons. The court said the prosecution had not been able to show a “prima facie” case, which is the minimum legal bar needed before someone can be put on trial. The court said that charges must be framed only when there is a “grave suspicion” — not just a vague or mild suspicion — and that standard had not been met.
What was even more remarkable was the language the trial court used against the CBI itself. The judge said that the investigation showed a “troubling picture of an investigation steered by a preconceived outcome.” He said that lawful government decisions had been “selectively extracted,” “stripped of context,” and “artificially interlinked to manufacture an appearance of conspiracy.” These were very sharp words, and they deeply embarrassed the CBI.
The court also noted that Manish Sisodia had spent about 530 days in jail during the case. Arvind Kejriwal had spent around 156 days in custody across two separate periods. These numbers reflected the personal cost that the accused had already paid, even before any trial had begun.
The case itself involved allegations about the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, which the AAP government had introduced. The CBI had claimed that the policy was deliberately designed to benefit certain private liquor dealers and that money had changed hands. The CBI had registered an FIR in August 2022, following a complaint by Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor, V.K. Saxena. The agency had alleged that kickbacks worth approximately Rs 90-100 crore had been paid as part of a criminal conspiracy.
The discharge order was a big relief for Kejriwal and AAP. But it was not the end.
The CBI Refuses to Accept Defeat: High Court Appeal
Within days, the CBI moved the Delhi High Court, challenging the discharge order passed by the trial court. The agency filed what is called a “criminal revision petition,” which is a legal tool used to question orders of lower courts.
The CBI argued before the High Court that the trial court had gone beyond its permitted role. At the stage of deciding whether to frame charges, a court is only supposed to check if there is enough material to proceed — it should not conduct a full-scale examination of the evidence as if it were holding a trial. The CBI said the trial court had done exactly that.
The matter came before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court. On March 9, 2026, Justice Sharma issued notices to all 23 accused persons, asking them to respond to the CBI’s petition. Crucially, Justice Sharma also made a preliminary observation at this stage that some of the findings of the trial court appeared to be “prima facie erroneous.” This was significant because it showed that the High Court was not going to simply dismiss the CBI’s appeal without a serious look.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) also separately approached the High Court, asking it to remove certain critical observations that the trial court had made against the ED. The agency said those remarks were “sweeping and unwarranted” and had been passed without giving it a chance to respond. The ED was worried that these remarks could damage its own case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which was being pursued separately from the CBI case.
Kejriwal Raises a Red Flag: The Recusal Plea
As the High Court proceedings got underway, Kejriwal noticed something that made him uncomfortable. He filed an application seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from the case. A “recusal” is when a judge steps away from hearing a case because there is a perceived or actual conflict of interest.
Kejriwal raised two main grounds for this request.
The first was about ideology. Kejriwal argued that Justice Sharma had been seen at events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), which is a lawyers’ body often described as ideologically connected to the RSS. Since the AAP and RSS are political opponents, Kejriwal said that her association with such groups created, at the very least, an appearance of bias against him.
The second was about a direct conflict of interest. Kejriwal pointed out that Justice Sharma’s children were empanelled as lawyers on the panel of the Central Government. Representing the CBI — which is the agency opposing Kejriwal in court — was the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta. Kejriwal argued that it was Mehta who decided which government cases went to which panel lawyers, and therefore Justice Sharma’s children were professionally dependent on the very person arguing against Kejriwal.
Kejriwal cited examples from the past where judges had voluntarily stepped aside in similar situations. He referred to Justice Sujoy Paul, who had sought a transfer from the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2024 because his son was practising before the same court. He also mentioned Justice Atul Sreedharan, who had sought transfer in 2023 because his daughter was about to start practicing in courts in the same state. Kejriwal said these examples showed that stepping aside in such situations was not unusual but was a well-established practice.
The recusal application was rejected by Justice Sharma on April 20, 2026.
What the Judge Said: ‘My Oath Is to the Constitution’
When she rejected the recusal plea, Justice Sharma spoke directly and firmly. She said that the allegations against her did not meet the legal standard of a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” She said they were based on “conjecture” rather than on real evidence.
The judge acknowledged that it would have been the “easier path” to simply step aside without deciding the application. But she chose to deal with it on its merits in the interest of protecting the integrity of judicial institutions.
She declared, “My oath is to the Constitution. My oath has taught me that justice does not bend under pressure. Justice does not yield to any pressure. I will decide and adjudicate fearlessly without any bias. I will not recuse from this case.”
She also cautioned that the “floodgates cannot be opened to sow seeds of mistrust” in the judiciary. She said that a litigant cannot be permitted to create a situation that lowers the judicial process. She described the situation as a “Catch-22” where both recusal and refusal could be criticized, but said that stepping aside without valid grounds would amount to an “abdication of duty.”
Kejriwal Writes the Letter: Satyagraha Begins
After the recusal plea was rejected on April 20, Kejriwal spent a few days reflecting on what to do next. On April 27, 2026 — which is the date this article is being published — Kejriwal wrote a four-page letter to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and made it public. He announced that neither he nor his lawyers would appear before her in this case.
In the letter, Kejriwal said he had come to the conclusion that the proceedings in her court did not satisfy the basic principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. He said participating further would serve no real purpose.
He wrote that when he read the order rejecting his recusal plea, he felt that his legal request had been received and understood as a “personal attack” on the judge and on the institution. He said these were not answers to the legal points he had raised. He said the feeling this gave him made it impossible for him to believe he would receive an impartial hearing.
Importantly, Kejriwal was careful to add that his stand was not against the judiciary as a whole. He noted that courts had given him relief in the past — granting him bail and ultimately discharging him in this very case. “Today, I walk free because of the judiciary,” he wrote. He said his respect for the Constitution and for the judicial system as a whole remained completely intact.
He also clearly stated that his boycott was limited to this specific case and any future cases involving the same parties — the Union Government, the BJP, the RSS, or the Solicitor General. He said he would continue to appear before Justice Sharma in unrelated cases.
He invoked Mahatma Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha and said that his conscience left him no other dignified choice. In a video message posted on social media, Kejriwal said in Hindi, “Justice Swarnkanta Sharma ji se nyaay milne ki meri umeed toot chuki hai” (My hope of getting justice from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has been shattered).
The Legal Risk: What Could Happen to Kejriwal Now?
Legal experts who have commented on this development are not all reassured by Kejriwal’s Gandhian framing. Many of them have pointed out that staying away from court proceedings in a criminal appeal could have very serious legal consequences for Kejriwal.
When the trial court discharged Kejriwal, he would have been required to sign a surety bond — a legal undertaking that he would appear before any higher court in case of an appeal. By boycotting the proceedings, Kejriwal could be seen as violating this bond.
Legal experts have indicated that the court could proceed with the case without Kejriwal’s participation and decide against him without hearing his side. In a worst-case scenario, they say the court could even issue a warrant against him for non-appearance.
Kejriwal himself acknowledged this risk in his letter. He wrote, “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.”
He also reserved the right to approach the Supreme Court of India to challenge Justice Sharma’s order rejecting the recusal plea. However, this option depends on his legal team taking active steps, which seems somewhat contradictory given his stated position of boycotting the proceedings.
BJP Hits Back: ‘Anarchic Theatrics’
The Bharatiya Janata Party was quick to respond to Kejriwal’s announcement. Delhi BJP President Virendra Sachdeva came out with a sharp statement, calling Kejriwal’s move a reflection of “lack of respect and trust in the judiciary.”
Sachdeva said, “Arvind Kejriwal has persistently engaged in political theatrics concerning the liquor scam case; having lost his judicial appeal in the Delhi High Court, he has now crossed every boundary of acceptable conduct to cast personal aspersions upon the Honourable Judge.”
The BJP also alleged that the AAP was running a “coordinated campaign” to exert pressure on the court. The party said Kejriwal was attempting to “sow seeds of mistrust” in the judiciary in a calculated manner.
The BJP welcomed Justice Sharma’s original decision to reject the recusal plea, saying it reaffirmed the principle of judicial independence.
AAP Stands Firm: ‘Satyameva Jayate’
The Aam Aadmi Party, on its official social media handles, backed Kejriwal completely. The party posted the hashtag “KejriwalKaSatyagraha” and the Sanskrit phrase “Satyameva Jayate” — meaning “Truth Alone Triumphs” — in support of his decision.
AAP supporters argued that Kejriwal was taking a principled stand, and that the concerns he raised about the judge’s family members’ professional links to the Solicitor General were valid and legitimate.
However, the move also came at a very difficult time for the party. Just 48 hours before Kejriwal’s letter was made public, seven of AAP’s ten Rajya Sabha MPs — led by Raghav Chadha — had merged with the BJP, which dealt a serious blow to the party’s presence in the Upper House of Parliament.
Some political commentators suggested that Kejriwal’s dramatic announcement was also, in part, a way to shift media attention away from the internal breakdown that AAP was experiencing. With Punjab elections approaching in 2027, and with key leaders having left, Kejriwal needed to reassert his position as a fighter standing against powerful forces. His Satyagraha letter gave him that opportunity.
The Bigger Question: Is This ‘Judge Shopping’?
The debate that has erupted in legal and political circles goes to the heart of a very important question: When is it right for a litigant to question the impartiality of a judge?
On one side, there is a well-established legal principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. If a person has a genuine, reasonable apprehension that the judge hearing their case has a conflict of interest, they have a right to say so. The examples Kejriwal cited — of judges who voluntarily stepped aside because of family members’ legal connections — show that such concerns are not invented.
On the other side, critics argue that if every litigant could pick and choose which judge heard their case, the judicial system would collapse. A judge cannot recuse themselves simply because a party is unhappy with them. A party cannot refuse to appear before a judge just because their recusal plea was rejected. This kind of behavior, if accepted as a valid protest, could be used to delay proceedings or put pressure on judges.
Justice Sharma herself addressed this tension in her order. She said that a litigant “cannot be permitted to create a situation that lowers the judicial process.” The fact that both recusing and refusing to recuse could attract criticism, she said, does not mean the court must yield to public or political pressure.
What Happens Next?
As of April 27, 2026, the case remains before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. Kejriwal has neither appeared in court nor sent his lawyers. The case number is Criminal Revision Petition 134/2026.
The court can choose to proceed with the CBI’s appeal without Kejriwal’s participation. In legal terms, this is called an “ex-parte” hearing. If the court proceeds ex-parte and decides in favour of the CBI, Kejriwal could be ordered to face trial again.
Kejriwal has said he will reserve the right to approach the Supreme Court to challenge Justice Sharma’s order on the recusal plea. Whether and when his legal team acts on this will be watched very closely.
The next hearing date and its outcome will be closely followed by the media, legal fraternity, and the public.
Summary at a Glance
- The Delhi Excise Policy Case: Alleged irregularities in the 2021-22 excise policy, involving kickbacks worth Rs 90-100 crore
- Trial Court Discharge: On February 27, 2026, all 23 accused including Kejriwal and Sisodia were discharged
- CBI’s Appeal: The agency moved the Delhi High Court, claiming the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction
- Recusal Plea: Kejriwal twice asked Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to step aside, citing ideological associations and family conflict of interest
- Recusal Rejected: Justice Sharma rejected the plea on April 20, 2026, saying her oath is to the Constitution
- Boycott Announced: On April 27, 2026, Kejriwal wrote a 4-page letter declaring a Satyagraha and refusing to appear
- Legal Risks: Experts warn Kejriwal could face a warrant or adverse order for non-appearance
- Political Reactions: BJP calls it anarchic theatrics; AAP calls it a principled stand
FAQs
Q1. What is the Delhi Excise Policy case about?
The Delhi Excise Policy case relates to the alcohol distribution policy introduced by the Aam Aadmi Party government in Delhi for the year 2021-22. The CBI alleged that this policy was deliberately designed to benefit certain private entities in the liquor business. It alleged that bribes worth approximately Rs 90-100 crore were paid to AAP leaders in return for favourable policy decisions. The FIR was registered in August 2022 following a complaint by Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor. Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia were among the 23 accused. Both spent significant time in custody — Sisodia for about 530 days and Kejriwal for about 156 days — before a trial court discharged all the accused in February 2026, saying the CBI had failed to make out even a basic case.
Q2. What does “discharge” mean in legal terms?
In Indian criminal law, a “discharge” means that the court has found that there is not sufficient evidence to frame charges against an accused person. It is different from an acquittal, which comes after a full trial. A discharge happens at an early stage and means that the court believes the prosecution has not presented enough material to even begin a trial. However, a discharge is not a final order — the prosecution can appeal it before a higher court, which is exactly what the CBI did in this case.
Q3. Why did Kejriwal want Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to recuse herself?
Kejriwal raised two main concerns. First, he said that Justice Sharma had been seen at events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), a lawyers’ body ideologically linked to the RSS. Since AAP and RSS are political opponents, Kejriwal argued this created at least an appearance of bias. Second, he said that Justice Sharma’s children were empanelled as Central Government lawyers, and that the Solicitor General of India — who was arguing against Kejriwal in court — was the same person who assigned cases to her children. Kejriwal said this was a direct conflict of interest.
Q4. What did Justice Sharma say when she rejected the recusal plea?
Justice Sharma rejected the plea on April 20, 2026. She said the allegations did not meet the legal standard needed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias. She said the claims were based on conjecture rather than evidence. She rejected the idea that a litigant could “sow seeds of mistrust” to force a judge to step down. She said her oath was to the Constitution and that she would decide the case without bias or pressure. She also noted that recusing herself without valid grounds would amount to an “abdication of duty.”
Q5. What is Satyagraha, and is it legally valid?
Satyagraha is a concept developed by Mahatma Gandhi during India’s freedom movement. It means a form of non-violent resistance based on truth — standing firm against what one believes is injustice, even if it means facing punishment. Kejriwal has invoked this principle to justify his decision to boycott the court proceedings. However, Satyagraha has no legal recognition in Indian procedural law. A court is not obligated to accept a party’s absence as a protest. The court can proceed without the party, issue a warrant, or take other legal steps. Kejriwal himself acknowledged in his letter that he was prepared to bear the legal consequences of his decision.
Q6. Can the court issue a warrant against Kejriwal for not appearing?
Legal experts say this is a real possibility. When an accused person is discharged by a trial court and the matter goes to an appeal court, the accused is generally required to sign a bond — a legal undertaking — that they will appear before the appellate court when required. If Kejriwal fails to appear without a valid legal reason, the court could proceed ex-parte (without his participation), deliver a ruling against him, or even issue a warrant for his appearance. Kejriwal himself admitted in his letter that he understood adverse legal consequences may follow and that he was prepared to face them.
Q7. Can Kejriwal still go to the Supreme Court?
Yes. Kejriwal has explicitly stated in his letter that he reserves the right to approach the Supreme Court to challenge Justice Sharma’s order refusing to recuse herself. However, approaching the Supreme Court would itself mean engaging with the legal process — which appears somewhat contradictory to his declared position of boycotting the proceedings. His legal team would need to file a separate petition in the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s recusal order. Whether and when this happens will be an important development to watch.
Q8. Why is this case also politically significant?
The case has deep political significance because it comes at a time when AAP is going through a serious internal crisis. Just two days before Kejriwal’s boycott letter, seven of the party’s ten Rajya Sabha MPs merged with the BJP, dealing a heavy blow to AAP’s national presence. The Punjab elections are expected in 2027, and AAP governs Punjab. Kejriwal’s dramatic act of Satyagraha allowed him to reclaim the narrative — positioning himself as a fighter against a politically motivated legal system, which resonates with a significant section of AAP’s voter base. Critics, however, say that this political context undermines the credibility of his judicial protest.