Kejriwal Refuses Court Appearance, Invokes ‘Satyagraha’ in Excise Case Showdown

In a dramatic escalation of his legal battle, Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal has refused to appear, either in person or through legal counsel , in the excise policy case being heard by the Delhi High Court . In a strongly worded letter to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma , Kejriwal declared that his “hope of getting justice” has been broken , marking a rare and striking stand by a sitting political leader in an ongoing judicial process.

Calling the situation a “grave miscarriage of justice,” Kejriwal said he has “serious and unreconciled concerns” about the fairness of the proceedings. His earlier plea seeking the judge’s recusal, rejected on April 20, appears to have deepened his apprehensions. According to him, what was intended as a lawful expression of concern was instead treated as a personal attack, leaving him with a “painful and inescapable impression” that his arguments were not being fairly understood.

Invoking the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi , Kejriwal said he has chosen the path of “Satyagraha” , framing his refusal as a matter of conscience rather than defiance. He stressed that “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done,” underlining that public trust in the judiciary rests not just on decisions, but on the perception of fairness.

In his letter, Kejriwal also raised specific concerns, including alleged associations with the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad and the professional engagements of the judge’s family members with Union government panels. These factors, he argued, create a situation where it is “impossible to receive an impartial hearing.” At the same time, he maintained that his stand is not against the judiciary as an institution , acknowledging that he has previously received relief, including bail, from the courts and reiterating his faith in the Constitution .

Admitting that his decision could prejudice his own legal interests , Kejriwal said he is prepared to face any consequences. He added that his refusal is limited to this case alone and that he will continue to participate in other legal matters where such concerns do not arise.

Keeping his options open, he said he may approach the Supreme Court of India . For now, his move has transformed a courtroom dispute into a larger national conversation on fairness, judicial perception, and the boundaries between law and personal conviction .