Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court has recused herself from the Delhi excise-policy case following allegations of bias [1].

The recusal highlights a deepening conflict between the judiciary and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leadership over the fairness of the liquor policy proceedings. This friction has escalated to a point where high-ranking political figures are openly challenging the impartiality of the bench.

Arvind Kejriwal, the leader of the AAP, formally refused to appear before Justice Sharma in a letter dated April 27, 2026 [2]. In the correspondence, Kejriwal cited a loss of faith in the judge's objectivity and alleged a conflict of interest [3].

"I will neither appear before her in person nor through legal counsel," Kejriwal said [4]. He said that he was "ready to bear the consequences" of his decision to boycott the proceedings [5].

The legal standoff expanded as Manish Sisodia also indicated that he and his legal team would not appear before Justice Sharma [6]. This collective refusal by AAP leaders prompted the judge to step aside from the case to avoid further controversy regarding the court's neutrality [1].

Reports indicate that Justice Sharma's recusal occurred amid these persistent allegations of bias and conflict of interest from the AAP [1]. While the judge has now exited the case, the incident underscores the volatile nature of the excise-policy litigation in New Delhi.

“"I will neither appear before her in person nor through legal counsel."”

The recusal of a High Court judge following a direct refusal by a defendant to appear signals a significant breakdown in the traditional relationship between the accused and the court. By alleging bias and boycotting the proceedings, the AAP is attempting to challenge the legitimacy of the judicial process in the excise-policy case, which could lead to further delays and potential contempt proceedings.