Delhi politics latest news: Senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia on Tuesday wrote to Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. In his letter to the Delhi High Court judge, he wrote that he would not participate in further proceedings in connection with the liquor policy case before her. 

The development comes a day after party chief and former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal decided to neither appear in person nor appoint any lawyer for his case in Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's court. Kejriwal's plea seeking the recusal of Justice Sharma was rejected on April 20. 

"No lawyer will appear on my behalf either. Your children's future is in the hands of Tushar Mehta," Sisodia said. He added, "I do not expect justice; there is no path left except Satyagraha." 

DON'T MISS | ‘Toxic work environment, corrupt members’: Raghav Chadha on why he left AAP to join BJP

He said that his decision not to appear in Justice Sharma's court is limited to the excise policy case and should neither be understood as a general refusal to appear before the Delhi High Court judge in all matters nor as general distrust of the judiciary.

In his letter, the senior AAP leader flagged two instances that are particularly troubling for him. The first being Justice Sharma's "repeated public attendance" at the events of the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyers' organisation allegedly associated with the RSS. 

MUST READ | He hosted Kejriwal over a year, then defected: Ashok Mittal's break with AAP

The second issue, according to Sisodia, was the Delhi High Court judge's children being on multiple panels of the Central government and their "appearance of closeness to the very law officers who now appear against me on the other side." 

Citing Kejriwal's letter, he added, "Mr Kejriwal's letter factually sets out the professional dependence of your children on Mr Tushar Mehta, who is solely responsible for marking the large number of case dockets to them, particularly your son." 

Manish Sisodia further said that no one ever argued that judges' children cannot practice law or that they can't become government counsel if selected through a fair, transparent, merit-based process. 

MUST READ | BT Explainer: What is Raghav Chadha's bill that could have made his BJP switch harder?

He added that while he does not wish to doubt her children's professional ability, the standard by which public confidence in courts is sustained isn't confined to actual wrongdoings but situations where surrounding circumstances create an appearance of conflict of interest and bias. 

“I am aware that some may misread such a step as an attack on the judiciary. I would against reiterate: this is incorrect. Constitutional maturity would have it that one may disagree with a particular course being followed in a particular case without losing faith in the institution as a whole. My respect for the judiciary remains undiminished. It is precisely because courts occupy so vital a place in our constitutional life that circumstances capable of shaking public confidence must be treated with the utmost seriousness,” Sisodia wrote. 

Furthermore, he said that if he continues to appear in hearings despite the 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."

Published on: Apr 28, 2026 11:38 AM IST