New Delhi: AAP convener Arvind Kejriwal On Monday, he wrote to Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refusing to appear in person or through a lawyer for the hearing in the Delhi excise policy case.In his letter, Kejriwal said he had “lost hope of getting justice” from the high court bench and decided to “follow Mahatma Gandhi’s path of civil disobedience”.“I had lost hope of getting justice from Justice Swarana Kanta Ji. That is why I decided to follow Mahatma Gandhi’s path of civil disobedience,” Kejriwal said.
He added that the decision was taken after listening to his “inner voice” and insisted he would exercise his right to appeal the order to the Supreme Court.I made this decision after listening to my inner conscience. I will reserve the right to appeal to the Supreme Court against Justice Swarana Kantha’s decision,” Kejriwal said.A few days ago, the Delhi High Court rejected Kejriwal’s plea asking Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to recuse herself from hearing the Delhi excise policy case.Kejriwal claimed in her application that she had serious, genuine and reasonable apprehensions that the hearing in the case before her would not be fair and neutral.His plea was that she heard multiple cases filed in the CBI FIR, including Kejriwal’s petition against his arrest, but never granted relief to any of the accused.Justice Sharma, however, made it clear that recusal cannot be granted based on perceived or unfounded concerns, warning that such an attempt could erode public trust in the judiciary.It said the accusations were “based on speculation and innuendo” and did not meet the legal standard required to establish bias.“Sirf Kejriwal ji ne ye allegation lagaya hain” (Only Kerjriwal ji has made his allegation), the judge said while referring to the allegation that her children were serving as legal advisers to the central government panel, adding that if such allegations were expected, “the court would not be able to hear any case in which UoI is involved”.She further said, “If the children of politicians can enter politics, how fair is it to question when the children or family members of judges enter the legal profession and struggle and prove themselves like everyone else”, noting that “such insinuations are not only baseless but ignore the judicial office and the integrity associated with it”.“There is a conflict of interest, but it appears to others to be a conflict of interest. In this case, they are portraying a conflict that does not actually exist. Litigants cannot be allowed to create a situation that degrades the judicial process,” she said.
