Sisodia joins Kejriwal in boycott of Delhi HC proceedings

Manish Sisodia said he will boycott proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case, citing concerns over impartiality and expressing solidarity with Arvind Kejriwal, invoking “Satyagraha” as his stance

New Delhi:  AAP leader Manish Sisodia on Tuesday made it clear that he will not appear in further proceedings before Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case.
This comes a day after party chief Arvind Kejriwal similarly decided to neither appear in person nor appoint any lawyer for his case in Justice Sharma’s court.

In a letter to Justice Sharma, Sisodia said, “No lawyer will appear on my behalf either. Your children’s future is in the hands of Tushar Mehta”. “I do not expect justice; there is no path left except Satyagraha,” he added. Referring to the letter written by Kejriwal raising the same concern, Sisodia said “troubling concerns” have been raised.

---

“I find myself in respectful agreement with the stand taken by him, which is based on Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings on Satyagraha,” Sisodia said. On Monday, Kejriwal wrote a letter to the high court judge after his plea seeking the recusal of Justice Sharma was rejected on April 20.

The former Delhi deputy chief minister said while he does not propose to repeat each and every aspect of what has already been stated in detail by Kejriwal, he wants to record that the “troubling concerns” flagged there are concerns that weigh upon his mind as well.

“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 letter said.
Sisodia further said, “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,”.

“In the context of this case, such instances lead to a more troubling question: what were 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?” “That is the difficulty I face today. My concern too, much like Kejriwal’s, is not born out of hostility to the Court. It is born of a deep unease that, if I continue to participate despite these 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 Kejriwal’s. I cannot,” Sisodia further said. Keeping in the mind these reasons, Sisodia said he too will not appear before the judge whether personally or through his counsel.