Arvind Kejriwal calls Goa his ‘lucky charm’ after Delhi high court judge recuses herself from excise policy case

NEW DELHI: AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal described Goa as his “lucky charm,” saying a major legal development in the Delhi excise policy case coincided with his visit to the coastal state.

Addressing a gathering in Velim, the former Delhi chief minister targeted the Centre while recalling his six-month imprisonment in connection with the alleged Delhi liquor scam, charges he has repeatedly termed fabricated.



His remarks came after Delhi High Court judge Swarna Kanta Sharma recused herself from hearing the excise policy case.

Reflecting on his time in prison and the subsequent court battles, Arvind Kejriwal said, "These people levelled grave allegations against me and sent me to jail for six months, claiming that Kejriwal had committed a massive liquor scam. I returned from Goa on the night of February 26th, and on February 27th, an order was issued declaring Kejriwal innocent. The CBI and the Modi government were very disturbed by how such an order could have been passed. They approached the High Court, and before the presiding judge, we filed an application requesting recusal due to a direct conflict of interest, which was initially refused. However, I arrived in Goa the day before yesterday, and yesterday she recused herself, so Goa is very lucky for me."

The Aam Aadmi Party termed it a major legal “victory” after Delhi High Court judge Swarna Kanta Sharma recused herself from hearing the excise policy case.

The recusal came following weeks of legal arguments by Arvind Kejriwal and other accused, who had raised concerns over their right to a fair and unbiased hearing.

According to the AAP, Justice Sharma stepped aside from the matter after repeated objections from Kejriwal and other accused regarding the fairness of the trial proceedings.

Describing the development as a significant victory for Kejriwal, the party said the decision validated the stand consistently maintained by its leadership since the beginning of the case.

On this development, AAP National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal stated, "Truth has prevailed. Gandhi Ji's Satyagraha has once again emerged victorious."

In a statement, the Aam Aadmi Party said that Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and other accused had repeatedly urged Delhi High Court judge Swarna Kanta Sharma to recuse herself from the matter, citing concerns over conflict of interest and the possibility of an unfair trial.

The party further claimed that Kejriwal had written a detailed letter to Justice Sharma outlining ten reasons and expressing hope that she would voluntarily step away from hearing the case.

"However, despite these concerns being raised, Judge Swarna Kanta Sharma had earlier decided not to withdraw from hearing the matter. Following that decision, Arvind Kejriwal had gone to Rajghat, paid homage at Mahatma Gandhi's memorial and resolved to follow the path of Satyagraha by deciding not to appear before her court in the matter," the AAP asserted.

The party said, "Arvind Kejriwal had maintained that whatever order her court passed would be accepted and that he would exercise his legal rights by approaching the Supreme Court. Among the ten reasons cited by Arvind Kejriwal seeking the judge's recusal, one major concern related to the fact that Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma's children are empanelled with the Central Government. In the excise policy case, the Solicitor General appears on behalf of the CBI and allocates cases in his role as a senior authority."

Meanwhile, AAP Delhi State President Saurabh Bharadwaj reacted to reports regarding contempt proceedings and said, "News reports suggest that Hon'ble Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma of the High Court has initiated contempt proceedings against AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and myself. During her order, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma repeatedly emphasised two things. First, she repeatedly said that she was not doing this out of personal displeasure, but to protect the credibility and dignity of the judiciary. She repeatedly said that this was not for herself. Second, she said that she had two paths before her, an easy path and a difficult path, and that she chose the difficult one every time. I want to say a few things in this regard."

(With ANI inputs)