Ex-Judge Questions Kejriwal’s Letter to Justice Sharma Over RSS-Linked Event Remarks

April 27, 2026

New Delhi: A fresh controversy has erupted after former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal wrote a four-page letter to Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, stating that he would not appear before her in the Delhi excise policy case after she refused to recuse herself from hearing the matter. The development has drawn reactions from legal circles, including remarks by a former judge over the basis of Kejriwal’s objections.

Kejriwal Refuses to Appear Before Justice Sharma

In all humility and with complete respect for judiciary, I have written the following letter to Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, informing her that pursuing Gandhian principles of Satyagraha, it won’t be possible for me to pursue this case in her court, either in person or through a… pic.twitter.com/HmyOyNYug8

— Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) April 27, 2026

In his letter, Kejriwal said he had lost faith in receiving justice from Justice Sharma and informed the court that neither he nor his counsel would participate in further proceedings before her in the excise policy matter. He described the move as being guided by his “conscience” and the principles of “Satyagraha.”

Recusal Plea Was Earlier Rejected

Justice Sharma had recently dismissed Kejriwal’s plea seeking her recusal from the case, observing that judicial impartiality cannot be questioned merely on the basis of personal apprehensions and that litigants cannot dictate the composition of the Bench.

RSS-Linked Event Mention Sparks Debate

Kejriwal had cited Justice Sharma’s attendance at events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad described by him as RSS-linked as one of the reasons for his apprehension of bias. He also raised concerns regarding the professional engagements of the judge’s family members.

Former Judge Raises Objections

A former judge has questioned the reasoning behind Kejriwal’s objections, suggesting that participation in public or professional events linked to legal organisations does not automatically imply bias or compromise judicial independence. The remarks have added to the wider debate surrounding judicial recusal and courtroom conduct in politically sensitive cases.