New Delhi, April 28: The announcement of a ‘Satyagraha’ by Arvind Kejriwal, the national convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party and former Chief Minister, has sparked a debate among legal experts. This follows a letter he wrote to Delhi High Court Judge Justice Swarnkant Sharma. Senior Advocate Adish C. Agarwal expressed strong objections, stating that such a move is entirely inappropriate.
Agarwal emphasized the importance of maintaining the dignity and protocol associated with the position of someone who has served as Chief Minister three times. He noted that if there is disagreement with a judicial order, one can approach higher courts, particularly the Supreme Court. He warned that publicly adopting the path of Satyagraha could send a negative message to the judicial system and adversely affect law and order.
On the other hand, lawyer Rishikesh Kumar offered a more balanced perspective. He clarified that the actions of Kejriwal and Sisodia should not be viewed as opposition to the judiciary. According to him, this falls within constitutional rights, especially when a litigant fears they may not receive fair justice.
Kumar pointed out that after the dismissal of the relevant petition, they had two options: to either re-argue the case in the same court and await a decision or to choose an alternative path while maintaining their concerns. He stated that the path of Satyagraha is a legally and historically valid method, reminiscent of Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle against injustice.
He further explained that if a litigant refuses to participate in the judicial process or fails to appear in court, the court may proceed with a one-sided hearing based on available documents. In such cases, choosing Satyagraha represents a form of ideological protest rather than contempt of court.
–
Leave a Comment