Liquor policy case: After Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia says he will not appear before Delhi HC judge

Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia on Tuesday said that he “will not participate” personally or through a counsel before Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the proceedings related to the liquor policy case.

This came a day after party chief Arvind Kejriwal said that he will not appear in person or through a lawyer before Sharma. The judge is hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s challenge against a trial court order discharging the former chief minister, Sisodia and several others in the case.

On April 20, Sharma rejected a petition filed by Kejriwal, Sisodia and the others that she recuse herself from hearing the case.

Their petition had raised concerns about “perceived ideological proximity”, referring to Sharma attending an event of an organisation linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The RSS is the parent organisation of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

Kejriwal also argued before Sharma that she had repeatedly passed orders in favour of the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate in the liquor policy case.

In a letter to the judge on Tuesday, Sisodia said that his doubts about her impartiality in the case stood unresolved.

Referring to a letter written by Kejriwal on Monday, Sisodia said that he was in “respectful agreement” with the stand taken by the AAP chief. He added that the decision was based on Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings on Satyagraha.

Sisodia added that Sharma’s repeated public attendance at Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad events, her children’s professional engagement with a Union government panel and their apparent closeness with government law officers appearing against him troubled him.

The Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad is a lawyers’ group linked to the RSS.

In an affidavit before the High Court, Kejriwal had stated on April 14 that the judge’s son and daughter have been empanelled as counsels by the Union government.

Kejriwal had highlighted that they are both allocated cases by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is appearing before the court representing the CBI.

An empanelled counsel is a lawyer selected by a government body, public sector undertaking or organisation to represent their legal cases for a designated period.

In his letter on Tuesday, Sisodia noted that no one had argued that the judge’s children could not practise law, and neither did anyone argue that they could not become government counsel if selected through a fair, transparent and merit-based process.

However, he asked if there was not a duty on the judge to disclose the circumstances of her children’s engagement with the Union government.

“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?” asked Sisodia.

He noted that he was apprehensive about the appearance of impartial justice.

“My concern too, much like Mr Kejriwal’s, is not born out of hostility to the court,” Sisodia said.
”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 AAP leader said: “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 Mr Kejriwal’s. I cannot.”

In a video posted on social media on Monday, Kejriwal said that he was preparing to challenge in the Supreme Court the refusal by Sharma to recuse herself from the matter.

Kejriwal said that he has no personal enmity with the judge or her children, but added that “justice should not only be done, but should also be seen to be done”.

“This matter is no longer about my case,” he said. “It is about the common person’s trust in the judicial system.”

The liquor policy case

The CBI had alleged irregularities in the Delhi government’s liquor excise policy, which has since been scrapped. Based on the CBI case, the ED also launched an investigation into allegations of money-laundering.

The policy came into effect in November 2021. It was withdrawn in July 2022 with Vinai Kumar Saxena, the Delhi lieutenant governor at the time, recommending an investigation into the alleged irregularities of the policy.

The two central agencies alleged that the AAP government at the time modified the liquor policy by increasing the commission for wholesalers from 5% to 12%. This allegedly facilitated the receipt of bribes from wholesalers who had a substantial market share and turnover.

On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others accused by the CBI in the case. There was no overarching conspiracy or criminal intent in the excise policy, the court had ruled.

The court had also criticised the central agency for implicating Kejriwal without any cogent material. It said that the chargesheet had several gaps not supported by any witnesses or statements.

However, the High Court on March 9 stayed the adverse observations made by the trial court about the CBI. The matter was heard by Sharma, who prima facie observed that the trial court’s findings were erroneous.

Kejriwal had written to the chief justice of the High Court seeking the transfer of the case from Sharma to another judge, but the request was declined. The former chief minister had contended that no specific reasons had been recorded for comments made against the trial court’s order.

He also noted that the judge had earlier denied bail to several persons accused in the case who had been subsequently granted relief by the Supreme Court.

The Aam Aadmi Party chief had sought the transfer on the ground of a “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension that the matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality”.