3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: May 5, 2026 04:15 PM IST
After Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal and party leaders Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak declared that they have chosen to go without legal representation in the excise policy case before the Delhi High Court, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Tuesday said she will appoint “someone senior (advocate) as an amicus (friend of the court)” for the trio.
The declaration by the three leaders had come in April, in three separate letters purportedly sent to Justice Sharma after she refused to recuse herself from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s plea in the case.
The CBI, in a revision plea before the HC, is challenging the discharge of 23 accused in the liquor policy case — including Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak — by a trial court in February.
In their applications seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal, as well as in their letters, the three men had objected to the judge’s alleged “public association with the RSS’s legal front, Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad”. AAP claimed it is ideologically opposed to it.
The three leaders also expressed that they apprehend bias if Justice Sharma hears the matter, given that her children are on the Union of India’s advocates’ panels who are assigned cases by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
Mehta is also appearing for CBI in the case before Justice Sharma.
On Tuesday, Justice Sharma said she will be passing an order on Friday to appoint senior counsel to assist the court, given that the three have chosen to not appear before the court, either personally, or through appointed counsel.
Story continues below this ad
She added that once the appointment for amicus curiae is made, she will begin hearing the case.
On April 27, Kejriwal had said, “I have lost hope of getting justice from Justice Swarana Kanta. Therefore, I have decided to follow the path of Satyagraha as shown by Mahatma Gandhi.”
On April 20, Justice Sharma refused to recuse herself from hearing the CBI’s challenge to the discharge of former Delhi CM Kejriwal and 22 others in the alleged liquor policy scam, noting that the recusal applications did not arrive with evidence but rather “with aspersions, insinuations and doubts” cast on her.
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
