5 min readNew DelhiUpdated: May 16, 2026 07:28 AM IST
In his letter to the court, Arvind Kejriwal said he had lost faith in receiving justice from the bench and conveyed that he would neither appear in person nor be represented through counsel. (File image)
Arvind Kejriwal news: Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s on Monday wrote a letter to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court after the judge dismissed his plea on April 20 seeking her recusal from Delhi excise policy case.
In his four-page letter to the court, Kejriwal said he had lost faith in receiving justice from the bench and conveyed that he would neither appear in person nor be represented through counsel. Shortly after, in an over-nine-minute video message posted on X (formerly Twitter), he reiterated that he would move the Supreme Court against the refusal to recuse.
His public statement expressing a lack of faith in the proceedings, coupled with his refusal to appear, raises a key question: when does protest against a court’s order begin to look like contempt?
Arvind Kejriwal’s remedy would be to challenge the order of the high court in the Supreme Court, which is the correct remedy, said Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra. (Image enhanced using AI)
No contempt if Kejriwal does not appear
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra said the move does not amount to contempt and that Arvind Kejriwal is legally entitled to challenge the order before the Supreme Court.
Responding to queries of The Indian Express on whether Kejriwal’s decision not to appear could amount to contempt of court, the former ASG said, “Mr Arvind Kejriwal is entitled not to appear before the court. That is not contempt. The court can then issue a process to him, summons to him, or issue a bailable warrant for his appearance. If he does not appear, it is open to the court to appoint an amicus curiae or a counsel from the legal aid panel to represent him.”
Remedy lies in Supreme Court against single judge order
Clarifying the legal position on approaching the apex court, he said, “Since it is an order of a single judge, Mr Arvind Kejriwal‘s remedy would be to challenge the order of the high court in the Supreme Court, which is the correct remedy. He may or may not succeed, and he may or may not appear, but legally, he is entitled to challenge the order of refusing to recuse.”
Courts must remain immune to social media chatter
Luthra also addressed the wider discourse around the issue, saying, “There is always going to be social media activity or media activity in relation to cases involving a former CM Arvind Kejriwal and seeking recusal before a judge. That being the position, there is a lot of chatter that goes on, and not only the media but even lawyers contribute to it. But the fact is, courts must be immune to these issues.”
Story continues below this ad
“Irrespective of this case, courts have to decide based on evidence and not based on perception. Courts have to determine matters within the four corners of law or evidence. In this case too, Mr Kejriwal had a remedy of raising an objection and asking for recusal,” Luthra said.
Recusal plea rejection can be challenged
He added that the court had to determine whether a genuine apprehension of bias was made out or not. “And the court has taken a view and rejected of Arvind Kejriwal‘s plea, which he is entitled to challenge. And that’s where the matter should and ought to rest. I think there is too much conversation about these issues that take place,” he said.
“Once there’s a judicial order, a litigant can pursue his or her legal remedy in the Supreme Court,” said another senior Supreme Court lawyer talking to The Indian Express.
High court rejects recusal plea
The Delhi High Court had dismissed Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in a matter linked to the Delhi excise policy case, holding that the request did not disclose valid grounds and that recusal cannot be sought on the basis of unsubstantiated apprehensions. It also noted that allowing such pleas without sufficient basis would set an undesirable precedent.
Story continues below this ad
The proceedings arise from cases connected to the now-withdrawn Delhi excise policy for 2021–22, which is under investigation by central agencies, with multiple related matters pending before courts.
The episode has also seen circulation of videos and commentary related to court hearings on social media, with the high court taking note in connected proceedings, directing removal of certain content and issuing notice in a contempt plea.
Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system.
Expertise
Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including:
Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability.
Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters.
Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights.
Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More
Arvind Kejriwal’s remedy would be to challenge the order of the high court in the Supreme Court, which is the correct remedy, said Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra. (Image enhanced using AI)