After Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia Boycotts Delhi High Court Hearing in Liquor Policy Case

In the ongoing liquor policy case before the Delhi High Court, Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia has decided to boycott further hearings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. This comes shortly after Arvind Kejriwal took a similar stand in the same matter.

Sisodia communicated his decision through a formal letter addressed to the judge, stating that he would not participate in the proceedings related to the excise policy case. He clarified that this decision is limited to this particular matter and should not be seen as a broader refusal to appear before the judge or a loss of faith in the judicial system.

Referring to the principle of Satyagraha, Sisodia stated that his decision is guided by his conscience. He emphasised that his stand should not be misunderstood as an attack on the judiciary, but rather as a reflection of his discomfort with continuing in the present circumstances.

The case is being heard by Justice Sharma in revision petitions filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation. These petitions challenge a trial court order that had discharged several accused, including Kejriwal, Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, and others in the alleged liquor policy corruption case.

Earlier, both Kejriwal and Sisodia had filed applications seeking the judge’s recusal, raising concerns about a possible appearance of bias. However, Justice Sharma dismissed these applications and chose to continue hearing the matter.

In his letter, Sisodia pointed to certain factors that contributed to his apprehension. These included Justice Sharma’s participation in events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad and the professional engagement of her children with various Union Government panels. He clarified that he was not questioning their competence but highlighting concerns about public perception.

Sisodia stated that maintaining public confidence in the judiciary goes beyond actual wrongdoing and includes avoiding situations that may give rise to a perceived conflict of interest. He noted that even the appearance of bias could undermine trust in judicial proceedings.

He further added, “I am aware that some may misread such a step as an attack on the judiciary. I would against reiterate: this is incorrect. Constitutional maturity would have it that one may disagree with a particular course being followed in a particular case without losing faith in the institution as a whole.”

Explaining his position, Sisodia said, “My concern too, much like Mr. Kejriwal’s, is not born out of hostility to the Court… The question before me is therefore a simple one: can I, with honesty, continue to take part in these proceedings while carrying a serious apprehension about the appearance of impartial justice? After much reflection, my answer is similar to Mr. Kejriwal’s. I cannot.”