The decision follows the judge’s refusal to recuse herself from the case, despite objections raised by Kejriwal.
In a letter addressed to Justice Sharma, Kejriwal said he would not pursue the matter before her court, either personally or through legal representation.
He cited adherence to Gandhian principles and stated that the proceedings did not meet the standard that justice must both be done and be seen to be done.
He also indicated that he may challenge the decision before the Supreme Court, keeping legal options open despite his decision to boycott the proceedings at the High Court level.
Recusal plea rejected
The development comes after Justice Sharma declined Kejriwal’s request to step aside from the case.
In her order, she emphasised judicial independence and stated that decisions would be made without bias or external pressure.
The court underlined that allegations of prejudice must be supported by substantive evidence and noted that such evidence had not been established in this instance.
Allegations of conflict of interest
Kejriwal had sought recusal on grounds of alleged conflict of interest, claiming that the judge’s family members, who serve as panel lawyers for the central government, had professional associations with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is appearing in the case.
He also raised concerns regarding the judge’s alleged association with certain legal forums. However, the court rejected these claims, stating that no direct connection to the case had been demonstrated.
Legal implications of non-appearance
Legal experts have indicated that failure to appear in court proceedings could lead to consequences under procedural law.
They noted that an accused person, after being granted relief, is typically required to comply with court directives during appeal proceedings.
Non-compliance may prompt the court to issue warrants to ensure attendance, beginning with bailable warrants and potentially escalating further.
Delhi excise policy case
The case originates from a challenge filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against a trial court order that had earlier discharged Kejriwal and others in the Delhi excise policy matter.
The High Court had taken note of certain findings in the lower court’s ruling and initiated further proceedings after issuing notice on the agency’s plea.
Kejriwal’s decision to abstain from the proceedings marks a significant shift in the case’s trajectory, as the matter continues before the High Court in his absence.
