Manish Sisodia on ‘Satyagraha’ in Delhi liquor case

Manish Sisodia joined Arvind Kejriwal in invoking Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha, refusing participation in Delhi liquor policy case proceedings, citing concerns over judicial fairness while maintaining faith in the judiciary and constitutional principles 

New Delhi: AAP leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia has joined his party’s national convener, ex-CM Arvind Kejriwal, in escalating their legal and political fight in the alleged Delhi liquor policy case by invoking the Gandhian principle of ‘Satyagraha’ while expressing a loss of confidence in the court proceedings.

After Kejriwal, Sisodia has also written a letter to the Delhi High Court judge expressing his reservations. Taking to X, Sisodia shared the letter and posted, “With the utmost respect and regard, I have written a letter to the Honorable Justice Swarnkanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court, requesting that, under the present circumstances, my conscience does not permit me to participate further in the proceedings of this case before her. For me, this is not a question of any particular individual, but rather of the trust upon which the justice system is built – that justice must not only be fair, but must also appear to be fair to every citizen.” “I also wish to make it clear that my faith in the judiciary and the Constitution remains completely unshaken. But when serious doubts linger in the mind, mere formal participation is not right for me. Therefore, I am left with no path but Satyagraha…” he added.

---

Sisodia wrote, “Yesterday, on 27 April 2026, Mr. Arvind Kejriwal addressed a letter to Your Ladyship setting out the reasons why, in his conscience, he was unable to participate in further proceedings in the present matter. I have carefully considered the substance of that letter. Having done so, I find myself in respectful agreement with the stand taken by him, which is based on Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings on Satyagraha.” “I wish to state that two aspects of this case trouble me a lot. The first is the issue arising from Your Ladyship’s repeated public attendance of the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyers’ organisation publicly understood to belong to the RSS. The second is the issue arising from the professional engagement of Your Ladyship’s children on multiple Union Government panels, and the resulting appearance of closeness to the very law officers who now appear against me on the other side,” he added.

Sisodia, in his letter, stated that judicial conscience becomes more troubled when one considers past instances where several Hon’ble judges, over the past 75 years of judicial history, have voluntarily recused themselves in similar situations.

He also referred to examples cited in Arvind Kejriwal’s letter, noting that some judges have even sought transfer from their State when their children began practising within the same jurisdiction, describing these as “high standards of judicial ethics” observed in the country. He further raised questions on procedural fairness in the present case, asking what the minimum duties of candour and self-regulation should have been.

He questioned whether there was a duty on the parent-judge to disclose such circumstances at the threshold, and whether Solicitor General Tushar Mehta should have placed these facts before the Court and litigants with complete fairness. He also asked whether the case, given its “extraordinary political sensitivity”, required greater caution, disclosure, and institutional self-scrutiny.

AAP National Media In-charge Anurag Dhanda also posted on X, stating, “After Arvind Kejriwal ji, Manish Sisodia ji has also chosen the path of satyagraha. Wrote a letter to Justice Swarnkanta saying – ‘The future of your children is in the hands of Tushar Mehta ji, I do not expect justice from you’.”

Earlier on Monday, Kejriwal had written to the Delhi High Court, addressing Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, stating that he would neither appear in person nor through legal counsel in proceedings related to the case. He said he had “lost hope of getting justice” from the court and would follow Mahatma Gandhi’s path of Satyagraha.