New Delhi: Former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia on Tuesday wrote to Delhi High Court Judge Swarana Kanta Sharma, stating that he could not in good conscience continue to participate in proceedings before her in the excise policy case, a day after Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal took a similar stand.
In a two-page letter addressed directly to Justice Sharma, Sisodia said he had carefully read Kejriwal’s letter of April 27 and found himself “in respectful agreement” with the position taken by the former chief minister, which was rooted in Mahatma Gandhi’s principle of Satyagraha.
“After much reflection, my answer is similar to Mr. Kejriwal’s. I cannot,” Sisodia wrote, when asking whether he could honestly continue to participate in the proceedings while carrying “a serious apprehension about the appearance of impartial justice.”
Recusal plea already dismissed
The letter comes eight days after Justice Sharma dismissed Kejriwal’s recusal application on April 20, rejecting demands that she withdraw from the case on grounds of conflict of interest and alleged political bias. Sisodia said two aspects of the case “trouble me a lot.”
The first, he said, was Justice Sharma’s “repeated public attendance” at events of the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), a lawyers’ body widely understood to be affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The second was the professional engagement of Justice Sharma’s children on multiple Union Government legal panels, where their brief allocations are controlled by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta – the same law officer appearing for the government on the opposite side in the case.
Sisodia referred to Kejriwal’s letter, which cited Right to Information (RTI) data showing that Justice Sharma’s son was marked 5,904 dockets between 2023 and 2025, placing him among the top 10 recipients out of approximately 700 panel counsels, with each docket carrying an appearance fee of Rs 9,000 per day.
Sisodia presses judge’s duty to disclose
Pushing back against the reasoning in Justice Sharma’s April 20 order, Sisodia said the judgment had answered a question that he had never raised. “I had not questioned the children’s right to practise their profession. No citizen can and should do that,” he wrote. “My question was altogether different, and far more constitutional in character: when such circumstances exist, what is the duty of the parent-Judge to preserve, protect, and publicly sustain the appearance of impartial justice?”
He also questioned what he called a failure of minimum standards of disclosure. “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?” he wrote.
I too accept Satyagraha: Sisodia
Sisodia said he was aware that his decision to not participate, whether personally or through counsel, could prejudice his own legal interests and expose him to adverse consequences. “But I too accept Gandhi ji’s principle of Satyagraha and accept that burden,” he said.
Clarifying the scope of his stand, Sisodia said it was confined strictly to the present matter and the specific circumstances that had arisen in it. “It should not be understood as any general refusal to appear before Your Ladyship in all matters, nor as any general distrust of the judicial institution,” he wrote.
In pointed language, Sisodia questioned why voluntary recusal norms observed by several judges over the past 75 years had not been applied here. He noted that some judges had, in the past, sought transfers out of their states after their children began practising in the same jurisdiction. “Such are the high standards of judicial ethics observed by several Hon’ble judges of our country,” he said.Sisodia requested the letter be placed on record and asked the court to proceed as it deemed fit.
| 
