Members of the legal fraternity expressed contrasting views over Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener Arvind Kejriwal’s decision to not appear before Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who is hearing the CBI’s plea against his discharge by a trial court in the excise policy case.
While some lawyers supported the former Delhi Chief Minister’s decision, others insisted that dissatisfaction with judicial orders must be addressed strictly through established legal remedies and not by refusing to participate in court proceedings.
Delhi High Court seeks Kejriwal’s stand on plea over court videos circulation
Senior advocate Sajan Poovayya described the move as a withdrawal from due process. “If there are apprehensions about fairness, the law provides remedies: seek recusal, challenge orders and approach a higher forum. Walking out does not strengthen the cause of justice. It weakens public faith in it. Courts derive legitimacy from scrutiny within the system and not from narratives outside it,” he told The Hindu.
Advocate Gyanant Kumar Singh said Mr. Kejriwal was “challenging the rule after losing the game”. He added that by earlier filing a plea seeking the judge’s recusal from hearing the case, the AAP chief had shown faith in the court.
