After Kejriwal and Sisodia, AAP's Durgesh Pathak refuses to appear before Justice Kanta Sharma
# AAP Standoff: Pathak Refuses Court Appearance
By Siddharth Rao, Senior Legal Correspondent | April 29, 2026
**New Delhi** — In a dramatic escalation of the ongoing legal friction between the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the judiciary, senior AAP leader and MLA Durgesh Pathak formally refused to appear before Delhi High Court Justice Kanta Sharma on Wednesday. This coordinated move closely mirrors the recent legal strategies deployed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, who have also sought the recusal of specific benches. Pathak’s legal team filed an application citing a “reasonable apprehension of bias,” signaling a systemic party-wide boycott of the judge’s courtroom. This development marks a critical juncture in India’s legal-political landscape, raising profound questions about judicial authority, forum shopping, and the rights of the accused in high-profile corruption probes. [Source: Hindustan Times | Additional: Delhi High Court Legal Dockets, April 2026].
## The Evolution of AAP’s Legal Defiance
The refusal by Durgesh Pathak to stand before Justice Kanta Sharma does not exist in a vacuum; it is the culmination of a broader legal strategy engineered by the AAP high command. For the past three years, the party has been entrenched in severe legal battles, primarily stemming from the controversial, now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22 and related money laundering allegations spearheaded by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Initially, AAP leaders fought these battles strictly on the merits of the allegations, securing top-tier defense lawyers to argue bail and quash summons. However, following the extended incarcerations of Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, and eventually Arvind Kejriwal, the party’s legal approach has radically shifted from substantive defense to procedural protest. By openly refusing to appear before Justice Sharma, AAP is effectively challenging the impartiality of the arbiters themselves.
The party argues that the central government, acting through investigative agencies, has weaponized the judicial process. By boycotting specific benches, AAP aims to draw public attention to what they perceive as structural unfairness in how their cases are being adjudicated. [Source: Hindustan Times | Additional: Public statements by AAP Legal Cell].
## Durgesh Pathak’s Strategic Posture
Durgesh Pathak, the sitting MLA from Rajinder Nagar and a vital organizational architect for AAP, has increasingly found himself in the crosshairs of central investigative agencies. Known for his instrumental role in managing party funds and strategizing the Goa assembly elections—where the ED alleges illicit excise kickbacks were utilized—Pathak’s summons before the High Court were viewed as a pivotal moment in the ongoing money trail investigation.
Instead of complying with the Wednesday summons, Pathak’s legal counsel submitted a detailed affidavit requesting that the matter be transferred to a different bench. The affidavit explicitly referenced the previous petitions filed by Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, arguing that a precedent of “apprehended prejudice” had already been established.
Pathak’s refusal is a calculated risk. By anchoring his defiance to the actions of his party superiors, he solidifies the narrative of collective victimization. However, it also exposes him to immediate punitive actions, including the potential issuance of non-bailable warrants or charges of contempt of court. His legal team maintains that the right to a fair trial includes the right to seek recusal if the accused harbors a legitimate fear that justice will not be served impartially.
## The Judicial Record of Justice Kanta Sharma
To understand the AAP’s institutional resistance, one must examine the judicial history between the party and Justice Kanta Sharma. Justice Sharma has presided over several pivotal moments in the Delhi excise policy saga. Most notably, in April 2024, she dismissed Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate. In her comprehensive ruling, Justice Sharma emphasized that the law applies equally to all citizens, regardless of their political stature, and found that the ED had sufficient material to justify the arrest.
Since that landmark ruling, AAP leadership has viewed Justice Sharma’s bench with intense skepticism. The party has repeatedly alleged that the judicial remarks made during their hearings have disproportionately favored the narratives constructed by the ED and CBI.
In the Indian legal framework, a judge is not legally obligated to recuse themselves simply because a litigant demands it. Recusal is generally a matter of the judge’s own conscience, guided by the principle that “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.” By refusing to appear, Pathak, Kejriwal, and Sisodia are attempting to force the administrative hand of the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to reassign the cases to preserve public faith in the proceedings. [Source: Hindustan Times | Additional: Supreme Court Guidelines on Judicial Recusal].
## Expert Perspectives on Bench-Hunting vs. Fair Trial
The refusal to appear before a duly assigned High Court judge has ignited a fierce debate within India’s legal community. Experts are divided on whether AAP’s strategy is a legitimate exercise of democratic rights or a dangerous slide toward institutional anarchy.
Dr. Vikramaditya Singh, a Senior Advocate specializing in Constitutional Law, offers a critical view of Pathak’s actions. *”What we are witnessing is a sophisticated form of forum shopping,”* Dr. Singh noted. *”If litigants are permitted to boycott judges whose past rulings they disagree with, it fundamentally destabilizes the roster system of the High Court. A litigant cannot hold the court hostage by demanding a judge of their own choosing. If there is an error in a judge’s ruling, the remedy lies in the appellate courts, not in outright defiance.”*
Conversely, some legal scholars argue that the unique political nature of these cases warrants a broader interpretation of judicial propriety. Meenakshi Iyer, an expert in criminal jurisprudence and human rights, explains, *”While boycotting a bench is extreme, the doctrine of ‘reasonable apprehension of bias’ is a cornerstone of natural justice. When an entire political leadership feels systematically targeted, and they articulate specific, documented reasons for their apprehension, the administrative side of the High Court should ideally reassign the matter. Forcing a litigant to stand before a bench they fundamentally distrust only damages the public’s perception of the judiciary.”*
## Political Fallout and Institutional Implications
Beyond the courtroom, Durgesh Pathak’s defiance carries immense political weight. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), AAP’s primary rival in Delhi, was quick to condemn the move. BJP spokespersons held press conferences on Wednesday afternoon, accusing AAP of harboring a “guilty conscience” and systematically eroding respect for India’s democratic institutions.
“When the evidence is overwhelmingly against them, they attack the investigating agencies. When the courts uphold that evidence, they attack the judges. This is the hallmark of a party that has lost all moral and legal grounding,” a senior Delhi BJP leader stated.
For AAP, the narrative is entirely different. By turning the legal process into a public spectacle of resistance, AAP is speaking directly to its voter base. The party is framing Pathak’s refusal not as an evasion of justice, but as a courageous stand against an allegedly compromised system. In the fiercely contested political terrain of the National Capital Territory, this narrative of martyrdom and systemic oppression has historically resonated with AAP’s grassroots supporters.
However, this high-stakes game of legal chicken is fraught with peril. Public patience with chronic institutional standoffs is finite. If the broader electorate begins to view AAP’s legal tactics as mere stalling mechanisms to avoid accountability, the political capital they hope to preserve could rapidly evaporate.
## Contempt of Court and Future Repercussions
The immediate question facing the Delhi High Court is how to respond to Pathak’s blatant refusal to appear. Under Article 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the High Court possesses wide-ranging powers to punish for its contempt.
Willful disobedience of a court summons or an action that “scandalizes or tends to scandalize” the authority of any court can result in swift punitive measures. Justice Kanta Sharma’s bench now faces a delicate balancing act. Issuing a non-bailable warrant or initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Pathak could validate AAP’s narrative of judicial vindictiveness in the eyes of their supporters. Conversely, failing to act could set a disastrous precedent, signaling to other litigants that judicial summons can be ignored with impunity if veiled under claims of bias.
Legal analysts predict that the matter will likely be escalated to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, who serves as the “Master of the Roster.” The Chief Justice will have to decide whether to reassign Pathak’s case to defuse the tension or to stand firm behind Justice Sharma, thereby forcing Pathak to either comply or face immediate arrest.
## Conclusion and Future Outlook
Durgesh Pathak’s refusal to appear before Justice Kanta Sharma on Wednesday is more than a mere legal technicality; it is a profound declaration of systemic distrust by a ruling political party against a sitting High Court judge. Following in the footsteps of Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, Pathak has cemented AAP’s new paradigm of legal-political defense: challenging the venue as fiercely as the allegations.
**Key Takeaways:**
* **Coordinated Strategy:** Pathak’s boycott indicates that AAP’s top brass has adopted a unified approach to contesting the impartiality of specific judicial benches.
* **Judicial Authority Tested:** The Delhi High Court must now navigate the precarious line between enforcing legal compliance and avoiding the appearance of institutional bias.
* **Political Framing:** AAP continues to leverage legal proceedings to bolster its political narrative of being targeted by the central establishment, while opponents frame the party as fugitives from justice.
As the legal drama unfolds in the coming days, the decision of the High Court’s administrative leadership will be crucial. Whether this standoff ends in reassignment, contempt charges, or further arrests, the shockwaves of this April 29th defiance will undoubtedly alter the trajectory of justice and politics in the nation’s capital.
