NEW DELHI: AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal on Monday wrote a letter to Delhi high court justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, refusing to appear in person nor through a lawyer before the court for the hearing of the Delhi excise policy case.In the letter, Kejriwal said that he has “lost hope of getting justice” from the justice and has decided to follow Mahatma Gandhi’s path of Satyagraha.He added that the decision was taken after listening to his “inner voice” and maintained that he will exercise his right to appeal the order before the Supreme Court.This comes days after Delhi high court refused allow a plea by Arvind Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Delhi excise policy case.In the application, Kejriwal claimed that there was a grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension that the hearing in the matter before her would not be impartial and neutral.His plea stated that she has heard multiple cases arising from the CBI FIR, including Kejriwal’s petition against his arrest, and never given relief to any of the accused.However, Justice Sharma made it clear that recusal cannot be granted on the basis of perception or unfounded apprehension, warning that such attempts risk eroding public trust in the judiciary. It said the allegations were “based on conjectures and insinuations” and fell short of the legal standard required to establish bias.Addressing the allegations of her children being central government panel counsels, the judge said: “Sirf Kejriwal ji ne ye allegation lagaya hain” (Only Kerjriwal ji has levelled his allegation), adding that that if such charge is expected, then the “court will not be able tk hear any matter in which UoI is a party”.She further said “if children of politicians can enter politics, how will it be fair to question when children or family of judge enter legal profession and struggle and prove themselves like others” and noted that “such insinuation is not only unfounded but also overlooks judicial office and integrity attached to it”.”There is such a thing as an actual conflict of interest, and then there’s making it look like one to everyone else. In this case, they’ve portrayed a conflict where none actually exists. A litigant cant be permitted to create situation that lowers judicial process,” she said.
