Kejriwal appeals to Delhi HC Chief Justice to transfer excise policy case to an impartial bench
According to the party, former Delhi Chief Minister and AAP convener Arvind Kejriwal, along with other accused in the excise policy case, on Wednesday appealed to Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyay to transfer the CBI’s petition challenging their acquittal by the trial court from Justice Swaran Kant Sharma to another judge.
In a representation to the Chief Justice, Kejriwal claimed that he had “serious, genuine and reasonable apprehensions” that the case would not be heard impartially and neutrally.
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, including Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, have filed separate representations in the High Court through their lawyers, seeking transfer of the case to an “impartial” bench of the High Court, the party said in a statement on Wednesday.
On February 27, the trial court acquitted Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 21 others, criticizing the CBI, saying its case had completely failed to withstand judicial scrutiny and had been completely discredited. On March 9, Justice Sharma’s bench stayed the trial court’s recommendation to initiate departmental action against the CBI’s investigating officer in the liquor policy case. Issuing notice to all 23 accused on the CBI’s petition against their discharge, Justice Sharma said that some of the trial court’s observations and conclusions at the stage of framing charges appeared prima facie erroneous and needed to be reconsidered.
The representation on behalf of Kejriwal stated, “It is requested that Crl. Rev. Petition No. 134/2026 (CBI vs. Kuldeep Singh and others) be transferred from the bench headed by Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma to another appropriate bench, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice and to maintain the faith of the litigants and the public in the fairness of the process.” He claimed that his fears were based on the judge’s past conduct and said that on the very first day of the CBI’s revision petition against his discharge, Justice Sharma, without even hearing the other side, recorded a prima facie opinion that the trial court’s detailed order was “erroneous.”
Kejriwal’s representation stated that Justice Sharma did not disclose any “specific irregularity” when staying the trial court’s orders against the CBI officer.
He also objected to Justice Sharma’s order to postpone the trial proceedings in the related ED case.
The representation stated that interim stay of a discharge order is an extraordinary measure, which can only be used in very rare circumstances on clear grounds of illegality or irregularity.
It emphasized that Justice Sharma had delivered judgments on several matters arising from the CBI FIR, including the petition against Kejriwal’s arrest and the bail applications of AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, as well as Telangana Jagruthi President K Kavitha, and had not granted relief to any of the accused “even once.”
The representation also stated that Justice Sharma, considering these previous arguments, had already recorded “detailed prima facie observations,” accepting the prosecution’s theory on essential questions.
It informed the Chief Justice that the Supreme Court had set aside three judgments and referred one to a larger bench.
In the representation, Kejriwal stated that the case against him was politically motivated and that his request for transfer of the pending case to another judge was based “not on any personal preference, but on the objective test of reasonable apprehension in the mind of an impartial and informed litigant seeking justice.”
“The undersigned, Shri Arvind Kejriwal, seeks administrative intervention for the transfer of Respondent No. 18, Crl. Rev. 134/2026, which is currently listed before the Bench headed by Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swaran Kanta Sharma, on the basis of serious, genuine and valid apprehension that the matter may not be heard impartially and neutrally.
