Toeing Arvind Kejriwal’s line, senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia has decided not to participate or argue further in the excise policy case proceedings before Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
In a letter written to Justice Sharma, Sisodia said that his doubts over Justice Sharma's impartiality in the case stand unresolved.According to his letter, Justice Sharma's repeated public attendance at Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parisha (ABAP) events, her children's professional engagement with the Central government panel, and the appearance of their closeness with government law officers appearing against him, trouble him a lot.
Kejriwal, Sisodia and other accused in the excise policy case had earlier sought recusal of Justice Sharma from the case.However, Justice Sharma rejected their application on April 20. The judge had said that a politician cannot be allowed to sow seeds of mistrust and that the application seeking her recusal amounted to putting the judiciary on trial.
Sisodia has now responded to the judgment in which Justice Sharma had said that her children being government panel counsel cannot be held against her since they have the right to practice law. According to Sisodia's letter, no one argued that the judge's children cannot practise law and neither did anyone argue that they cannot become government counsel if selected through a fair, transparent and merit-based process.
However, was there not a duty on the judge to disclose the circumstances of her children's engagement with the central government, Sisodia has asked."Was there not, at the very least, a duty on the part of the parent-Judge to disclose these circumstances to the parties at the very threshold? Was there not a corresponding duty upon the Ld. Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta, to place these facts before the Court and the litigants with complete fairness? Was there not a duty to pause and ask whether a matter of such extraordinary political sensitivity demanded a higher degree of caution, disclosure, and institutional self-scrutiny?" the letter said.
He said that his concern is very much similar to Kejriwal's - apprehension about the appearance of impartial justice."My concern too, much like Mr. Kejriwal's, is not born out of hostility to the Court. It is born of a deep unease that, if I continue to participate despite these circumstances, I would be acting against my own conscience too while pretending before my fellow countrymen that all doubts stand resolved. 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," the letter said in conclusion.
A trial court on February 27 this year discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused in the case. The CBI challenged the order and the same is currently being heard by Justice Sharma.
Follow us
