Senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia has decided not to participate or argue further in the excise policy case proceedings before Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma..The decision comes close on the heels of AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal's decision to boycott proceedings before Justice Sharma in the same case.In a letter written to Justice Sharma, Sisodia said that his doubts over Justice Sharma's impartiality in the case stand unresolved.According to his letter, Justice Sharma's repeated public attendance at Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parisha (ABAP) events, her children's professional engagement with the Central government panel, and the appearance of their closeness with government law officers appearing against him, trouble him a lot..Kejriwal, Sisodia and other accused in the excise policy case had earlier sought recusal of Justice Sharma from the case.However, Justice Sharma rejected their application on April 20. The judge had said that a politician cannot be allowed to sow seeds of mistrust and that the application seeking her recusal amounted to putting the judiciary on trial.Sisodia has now responded to the judgment in which Justice Sharma had said that her children being government panel counsel cannot be held against her since they have the right to practice law.According to Sisodia's letter, no one argued that the judge's children cannot practise law and neither did anyone argue that they cannot become government counsel if selected through a fair, transparent and merit-based process.However, was there not a duty on the judge to disclose the circumstances of her children's engagement with the central government, Sisodia has asked."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 the Ld. Solicitor General, Mr. 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?" the letter said..He said that his concern is very much similar to Kejriwal's - apprehension about the appearance of impartial justice."My concern too, much like Mr. 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 Mr. Kejriwal's. I cannot," the letter said in conclusion..The excise policy case arose in 2022 when the CBI registered a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22 was manipulated to facilitate monopolisation and cartelisation of liquor trade in Delhi.The probe agency said that AAP and its leaders received kickbacks from liquor manufacturers due to manipulation of the policy. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) also later registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the matter.What followed was a series of arrests of opposition leaders, criticised by some quarters as being politically motivated.It was alleged that a criminal conspiracy was hatched by AAP leaders, including Sisodia and Kejriwal and other unidentified and unnamed private persons/entities at the stage of the policy’s formulation.The conspiracy, it was alleged, involved loopholes “intentionally” left or created in the policy. These loopholes were allegedly meant to favour some liquor licensees and conspirators post the tender process, it was claimed..A trial court on February 27 this year discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused in the case. The CBI challenged the order and the same is currently being heard by Justice Sharma.On March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice in the matter and stayed the trial court direction for department proceedings against the CBI officer who investigated the case. Justice Sharma also gave a prima facie finding that some of the observations made by the trial court in its order were erroneous. She further directed the trial court to defer the PMLA proceedings, which are based on the CBI's case.Kejriwal and other accused - Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai and Chanpreet Singh Rayat - subsequently filed applications for Justice Sharma's recusal.The same was rejected by Justice Sharma who decided that she will continue hearing the matter. Kejriwal and Sisodia have now decided to boycott the same.
