What next as Kejriwal boycotts judge who refused to withdraw in liquor policy case

Former Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party convenor Arvind Kejriwal on Monday said he would no longer take part in proceedings before the Delhi High Court in the liquor policy case, describing his decision as a form of “Gandhian satyagraha”.

In a public statement and a letter addressed to Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who is hearing the CBI’s appeal against the clearing of charges of all 23 accused in the case, Kejriwal said he would stop appearing in the matter, either personally or through his lawyers. The move came days after the High Court rejected his plea, seeking the judge’s withdrawal from the case.

Kejriwal argued that Justice Sharma’s decision to continue hearing the matter despite allegations of bias amounted to a “grave miscarriage of justice”. “I have decided that I shall not participate in any further proceedings in this matter, either in person or through counsel,” he added.

“I do not take this step lightly. I am fully conscious that by doing so, I may prejudice my own legal interests. I understand that adverse consequences in law may follow. I am prepared to bear those consequences,” he further said.

The Delhi High Court is expected to continue hearing the CBI’s appeal on April 29. Even if Kejriwal does not attend or instruct lawyers to appear, the court can continue proceedings through other legal mechanisms. The judge may issue notices, direct appearance, appoint a lawyer or take coercive steps if required.

WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT?

The controversy stems from allegations raised by Kejriwal that Justice Sharma may not be able to hear the matter impartially.

The AAP leader claimed that the judge’s children work as government panel lawyers assigned cases through the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the CBI in the matter. Kejriwal also referred to what he described as Justice Sharma’s “public association” with an RSS-linked organisation, arguing that it created an apprehension of political bias.

On April 20, however, the Delhi High Court rejected his plea seeking the judge’s recusal.

The case relates to the Delhi liquor policy investigation being conducted by the CBI. A trial court had cleared 23 accused of all charges in the matter, including Kejriwal and other AAP leaders, meaning it found there was not enough material to proceed to trial.

The CBI challenged that order in the Delhi High Court. Importantly, the discharge order itself has not been suspended. The High Court only paused a portion of the trial court’s ruling that made adverse remarks against the CBI investigating officer and ordered a departmental inquiry.

WHAT HAPPENS IF KEJRIWAL STOPS APPEARING?

Legal experts say Kejriwal’s refusal to participate could create complications but does not stop the case from continuing. Under criminal procedure law, even if a person has been discharged or acquitted, they may still be required to appear before a higher court if an appeal is filed.

This happens through a legal bond signed by the accused and a surety – a person who guarantees their appearance in court. If the accused does not appear despite signing such a bond, courts have powers to compel attendance.

These may include:

1. Issuing a bailable warrant, which allows the accused to secure release after appearing before the court.
2. Issuing a non-bailable warrant if repeated non-appearances continue.
3. Forfeiting the surety amount attached to the bond.
4. Directing the accused to appear before a trial court again under certain circumstances.

Legal experts say criminal appeals cannot proceed entirely one-sided because courts are expected to ensure fairness.

Even if Kejriwal or his legal team stop appearing, the High Court may appoint an independent lawyer, known as an amicus curiae, to represent his interests. An amicus curiae, meaning “friend of the court”, assists judges in ensuring that all legal arguments are fairly considered.

Senior Advocate and former Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra said the court has several options available. “The court may issue a bailable warrant to compel appearance, or appoint an amicus curiae to protect the interests of the accused,” he told India Today TV.

Luthra said criminal appeals cannot be decided entirely without hearing the accused. “There is no question of ex parte proceedings because this is a criminal appeal where the case can be sent back for trial. Natural justice demands that everyone must be heard,” he said.

Senior lawyer Satish Tamta also said courts can issue warrants if an accused fails to comply with a bond requiring appearance.

A RARE SITUATION IN COURT

Court records show that several accused persons – including Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and Vijay Nair – have not yet filed formal written replies to the CBI’s appeal. Instead, much of the hearing so far has focused on arguments over whether Justice Sharma should continue hearing the case.

The High Court had repeatedly granted time to the accused to file responses on March 9, March 16, April 6, April 13 and April 20.

In a separate 2025 ruling, the Supreme Court said pausing a discharge order is a “very drastic” step and should be done only in rare and exceptional cases. That observation has been cited because the High Court has not halted the discharge of the accused in the excise policy case.

Kejriwal had also moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s March 9 order. However, the petition remains marked as “in defects” on court records, meaning procedural issues are yet to be resolved before it can move forward.

WHAT COURTS SAID EARLIER

Past court rulings suggest judges may take a strict view if an accused knowingly avoids appearing. In a 2008 Delhi High Court judgment, the court noted that some accused persons misuse the legal process by remaining absent despite being aware of proceedings.

The High Court had said that if an accused repeatedly fails to appear despite warrants, an appellate court may still continue hearing the matter.

In another Delhi High Court judgment in Mukesh vs State of Delhi, the court observed that a person who chooses not to participate in legal proceedings cannot later complain about the consequences. “A convict cannot abuse the process and defeat criminal justice,” the court said.

A retired Delhi High Court judge, speaking to India Today TV on condition of anonymity, said refusing to participate despite being aware of the proceedings could carry legal consequences. “If you are aware of the proceedings and then you don’t appear and don’t participate, the consequences will follow,” the retired judge said.

Kejriwal’s boycott does not automatically halt the case, but it shifts the focus from the merits of the appeal to whether a high-profile accused can refuse participation in a criminal appeal while the court process continues.

The coming hearings are likely to test how courts balance a litigant’s protest with the legal obligation to participate in judicial proceedings.

- Ends

Tune In