Following the precedent set by AAP National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal, former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia has written a formal letter to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court, declaring his intention to boycott further proceedings in the excise policy case. Sisodia stated that he will no longer be represented by legal counsel before her bench, citing a total "loss of hope" in receiving an impartial hearing. He characterized his decision as a shift from legal defense to "Satyagraha," a Gandhian path of non-violent resistance.

'No Path Left Except Satyagraha'

In his communication to the court, Sisodia echoed the sentiments recently expressed by Kejriwal, who had previously announced a similar boycott. Sisodia’s letter underscores a deep-seated apprehension regarding the neutrality of the current bench. "No lawyer will appear on my behalf either. I have no hope of getting justice," Sisodia wrote. "There is no path left except Satyagraha." Kejriwal Writes to Delhi HC Judge, Declines to Participate Further in Excise Policy Case Proceedings.

The move marks a dramatic escalation in the legal and political standoff between the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the judiciary. By refusing to participate in the proceedings, Sisodia is signaling that he no longer views the current legal process under this specific bench as a viable route for his defense.

The Conflict of Interest Allegations

The core of the dispute lies in a recusal application previously filed by the AAP leaders, which Justice Sharma dismissed on April 20, 2026. The leaders had alleged a potential conflict of interest, pointing out that the judge’s children are empanelled as Union Government counsel—the very entity represented by the CBI and ED in these cases. Justice Sharma, however, rejected these claims as "conjecture" and "aspersions." In her 115-page order, she maintained that the courtroom cannot become a "theatre of perception" and emphasized her constitutional oath to remain impartial.

Context of the Excise Policy Case

The case entered a critical phase on February 27, 2026, when a trial court discharged Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and 21 others, citing a lack of evidence to sustain the corruption charges. The CBI subsequently challenged this discharge in the High Court, where the matter is currently being heard by Justice Sharma. Sisodia’s letter argues that the dismissal of the recusal plea itself became a reason for further loss of confidence. He suggested that his legal arguments were perceived by the court as personal attacks rather than legitimate procedural concerns. Delhi HC Directs Takedown of All Links of Kejriwal's April 13 Hearing, Impleads Centre; Issues Notice to Kejriwal, Sisodia, Others.

'No Path Left Except Satyagraha'

AAP leader Manish Sisodia also writes to Delhi HC Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, says will not pursue excise case in her court: AAP. pic.twitter.com/QzyktII30m

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) April 28, 2026

Legal Implications of the Boycott

Legal experts suggest that while the boycott is a powerful political statement, it may not halt judicial proceedings. The High Court has the authority to proceed ex-parte (in the absence of one party) or appoint an amicus curiae (friend of the court) to ensure the legal interests of the accused are technically represented. Despite the boycott, Sisodia clarified that he reserves the right to challenge any adverse orders in the Supreme Court, maintaining that his protest is specific to the current bench and not the judicial institution as a whole.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Apr 28, 2026 09:21 AM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).