Arvind Kejriwal, former Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader, has formally declared that he will not participate in further proceedings in the Delhi High Court’s liquor policy case before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. This decision follows the dismissal of his application seeking the judge’s recusal, with Kejriwal stating he has lost confidence in the fairness of the proceedings and is prepared to face any legal consequences arising from his boycott.According to Live Law, Kejriwal’s letter to Justice Sharma invoked Gandhian principles of satyagraha and emphasised that his decision was made with respect for the judiciary. He cited concerns about the appearance of impartiality, referencing the professional engagements of the judge’s children as government counsel and the volume of assignments they received from the Solicitor General, who is representing the Central Bureau of Investigation in the case.As reported by Hindustan Times, Kejriwal’s letter stated that the judgment rejecting his recusal plea was perceived as a personal and institutional affront, making it impossible for him to believe he could receive an impartial hearing. He referenced comparable instances where judges recused themselves due to potential conflicts involving family members, arguing that such steps are necessary to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.As highlighted by Scroll, Kejriwal reiterated that his refusal to appear is limited to this specific case and similar matters involving the Union Government or the Bharatiya Janata Party. He clarified that he would continue to appear before Justice Sharma in unrelated cases and reserved the right to challenge the order rejecting his recusal application before the Supreme Court.Justice Swarana's Dramatic Refusal to Recuse Herself Comes at Institutional Cost"I shall not participate in the further proceedings. I am fully conscious that by doing so, I may prejudice my own legal interests. I am prepared to bear those consequences. That is the burden which every conscientious act of Gandhian satyagraha must bear, and my conscience leaves me no other dignified course," Kejriwal wrote in his letter.As noted in an article by Financial Express, Kejriwal’s application for recusal was based on concerns about impartiality, including Justice Sharma’s previous orders and her children’s roles as government counsel. Justice Sharma dismissed these concerns, stating that allegations of bias were unsupported and that recusal cannot be granted on the basis of perception alone.Further details show that Kejriwal cited historical precedents where judges transferred or recused themselves to avoid any appearance of conflict, referencing Justices Sujoy Paul, Atul Sreedharan, and V Sivaraman Nair. He argued that his decision was a matter of conscience and public trust in the judiciary.The decision to boycott was confirmed following communication from Kejriwal to Justice Sharma, in which he stated that neither he nor his counsel would participate in the proceedings. This move came after the court’s rejection of his recusal plea on 20 April 2026.Kejriwal’s stance was reiterated in subsequent statements, where he described his decision as an act of satyagraha inspired by Mahatma Gandhi and emphasised that he would appeal Justice Sharma’s decisions in the Supreme Court if necessary."My hope of getting justice from Justice Swarna Kanta is shattered. Therefore, I have decided to follow Gandhiji's Satyagraha. I have made a decision based on the voice of my conscience. I will reserve the right to appeal Justice Swarna Kanta's decision in the Supreme Court," Kejriwal stated.Details of the court’s response emerged after the announcement, with Justice Sharma maintaining that judges cannot recuse themselves solely to satisfy a litigant’s apprehension of bias without material evidence. She emphasised that such actions could undermine the judicial process and that a litigant cannot be allowed to judge a judge without substantiated grounds.Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.