Aam Aadmi Party leader Durgesh Pathak on Tuesday told Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma that he will not participate personally or through a counsel before her in the proceedings related to the liquor policy case.

On Monday, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal said that he would not appear before Sharma. A day later, party leader Manish Sisodia also told Sharma that he would not appear before her in the liquor policy case.

The judge is hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s challenge to a trial court order discharging the former chief minister, Sisodia, Pathak and several others in the case. On April 20, Sharma rejected a petition filed by the AAP leaders 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 his letter on Tuesday, Pathak said that he agreed with the concerns raised by Kejriwal.

“Accordingly, I too have resolved not to participate further in the present proceedings, either personally or through legal representation,” Pathak said, adding that his letter should not be seen as a sign of disrespect towards the court.

“I take this opportunity to unequivocally affirm my abiding faith in the Constitution of India and in the institutional integrity of the judiciary of this nation,” he added.

In separate letters, Kejriwal and Sisodia had reiterated their concern about Sharma’s “public association” with the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, which is a lawyers’ group linked to the RSS.

The two party leaders also noted that Sharma’s son and daughter have been empanelled as counsels by the Union government. Kejriwal highlighted that they are both allocated cases by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is appearing before the High 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 a video posted on social media on Monday, Kejriwal further said that he was preparing to challenge in the Supreme Court the refusal by Sharma to recuse herself from the matter.

The AAP chief 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, Pathak and 20 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 AAP 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”.