Now, Manish Sisodia writes to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma; says he 'can't be part of proceedings' in her court

Kejriwal, Sisodia say their decision not to argue before Justice Sharma in excise policy case or engage a lawyer for them is inspired by the concept of Gandhian Satyagraha.

New Delhi: A day after AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal announced that he or his lawyer will not appear before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case, former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia on Tuesday followed suit, arguing that he “cannot honestly” be part of the proceedings while carrying a “serious apprehension” about her impartiality.

During the day, Kejriwal and Sisodia went to Raj Ghat to pay their tributes to Mahatma Gandhi, as they argued their decision not to argue before Justice Sharma in this case or engage a lawyer for them is inspired by the concept of Gandhian Satyagraha.

Justice Sharma had earlier binned their plea seeking her recusal from the case owing to her participation in RSS-linked programmes and her children's “professional dependence” on Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is arguing the CBI appeal against Kejriwal and Sisodia's discharge in the excise policy case before her bench, as they are on multiple government panels.

In his letter, Sisodia said her “repeated” public attendance of the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyers' body linked to the RSS, and the professional engagement of her children on multiple government panels and their resulting closeness to the law officers appearing against him are troubling.

“... where circumstances have become so grave that my conscience no longer permits me to proceed as though nothing is amiss, silence or participation would, for me, amount to form surrender of conscience ... for reasons substantially aligned with those set out by Arvind Kejriwal ... I too shall not participate in further proceedings in this matter before this court, whether personally or through counsel,” he said.

Admitting that his decision may prejudice his own interests in law and expose him to adverse consequences, he said a litigant may "sometimes have to choose between convenience and conscience" and his conscience too leaves him "with no dignified alternative".

Emphasising that his faith in the Constitution and the institution of the court remains firm, he said, "What troubles me is only the continuance of this matter before this Bench despite circumstances that in my respectful view are continuing to generate graver and graver public doubt over Your Ladyship's impartiality."

While insisting that the letter was not intended as disrespect or any personal attack on her, he disagreed with her reasoning in the judgment while refusing to recuse from their case. He said he has never questioned her children's professional capacity or right to practice their profession. He said nobody is arguing that judge's children cannot practice law.

Referring to some judges voluntarily recusing or seeking transfer out of States if their children are practicing in the High Courts, he said, "What are the minimum duties of candour and self regulation that arose in the present case? 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 Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to place these facts before the court and the litigants with complete fairness? Was there not a duty to pause and ask whether a matter of such extraordinary political sensitivity demanded a higher degree of caution, disclosure and institutional self scrutiny?" he said.