Sisodia boycotts Delhi HC excise case proceedings, cites conscience and Satyagraha
Synopsis
Two of AAP's most prominent leaders have simultaneously refused to participate in Delhi High Court proceedings in the excise policy case, invoking Mahatma Gandhi's Satyagraha. The move comes after Justice Sharma rejected Kejriwal's recusal plea, setting up a rare standoff between senior politicians and the judiciary that could have significant legal and political consequences.
Key Takeaways
Manish Sisodia wrote to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on 28 April , refusing further participation in Delhi Excise Policy case proceedings.
The decision mirrors a letter sent a day earlier by AAP National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal to the same judge.
Both leaders invoked Mahatma Gandhi's Satyagraha principle to justify their boycott.
Justice Sharma had earlier rejected Kejriwal's recusal plea, choosing to decide on merits in the interest of institutional integrity.
The CBI 's criminal revision petition challenges the trial court's discharge of all 23 accused , including Kejriwal and Sisodia, in the corruption case.
Former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia has written to Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, stating he will no longer participate in proceedings linked to the alleged Delhi Excise Policy case — either in person or through counsel. The letter, sent on 28 April, follows a near-identical communication by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal a day earlier, in which Kejriwal had declared he would not appear before the same judge in the same matter.
What Sisodia Said
In his letter, Sisodia stated he was in
Point of View
AAP is framing a judicial process as a crisis of institutional fairness — a framing that plays well with its base but carries real legal risk for both leaders. Justice Sharma's rejection of the recusal plea, on the explicit grounds of institutional integrity, makes the boycott look less like principled dissent and more like an attempt to delegitimise proceedings they cannot control. The CBI's pending revision petition — which seeks to revive charges against all 23 discharged accused — is the real sword hanging over them, and the boycott does nothing to blunt it.
NationPress
1 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why has Manish Sisodia refused to participate in the Delhi High Court excise case proceedings?
Sisodia stated in his letter to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma that he cannot, in good conscience, continue participating while harbouring serious apprehensions about the appearance of impartial justice. He aligned himself with Arvind Kejriwal's earlier stand and invoked Mahatma Gandhi's principle of Satyagraha as the moral basis for his decision.
What is the Delhi Excise Policy case about?
The Delhi Excise Policy case involves alleged corruption linked to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed a criminal revision petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court's discharge of all 23 accused, including Kejriwal and Sisodia.
What did Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rule on the recusal plea?
Justice Sharma rejected Kejriwal's plea seeking her recusal from the case. She observed that while the easier path would have been to recuse without hearing the application, she chose to decide the matter on merits in the interest of institutional integrity.
What legal consequences could the boycott have for Sisodia and Kejriwal?
Sisodia himself acknowledged in his letter that abstaining from proceedings could prejudice his legal interests and expose him to adverse consequences. By not appearing personally or through counsel, both leaders risk adverse orders being passed without their representation.
How does this development relate to the CBI's pending petition?
The CBI's criminal revision petition before the Delhi High Court challenges the trial court's discharge of all 23 accused in the excise policy corruption case. The proceedings before Justice Sharma are linked to this petition, making the boycott by Kejriwal and Sisodia a significant development in the ongoing legal battle.
