Transfer excise policy case to ‘impartial’ bench: Arvind Kejriwal writes to Delhi high court Chief Justice

NEW DELHI: Former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal has written to the Delhi high court Chief Justice, seeking transfer of the excise case from the court of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another bench “on the ground of a grave, bona fide and reasonable apprehension that the matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality.”

Kejriwal was arrested in June 2024 in connection with the excise case and chargesheeted in July.

The arguments on the charge started from Dec 2025 and, in a detailed order on Feb 27, the special court discharged Kejriwal and all other accused in the case, including former deputy CM Manish Sisodia and AAP's Rajya member Sanjay Singh. The representation was submitted by Kejriwal and others.




Referring to the proceedings before Delhi HC, Kejriwal said CBI filed a revision petition of about 50 pages challenging the discharge order. However, according to the representation, the petition was instituted "without identifying any accused-specific perversity, nor pinpointing the particular findings, paragraphs, or evidentiary errors which would justify revisional jurisdiction".

The AAP functionaries stated that at the very first short hearing on March 9, 2026, HC not only issued notice but, ex parte and without hearing any of the discharged accused, proceeded to record a prima facie view that the trial court's detailed order was "erroneous".

The representation also stated that the court stayed the trial court's directions and observations qua the investigating officer, including the initiation of departmental action, without addressing the context and reasoning recorded by the trial court for such findings. They argued that HC's order did not disclose any reasons as to what specific perversity warranted such ex parte restraint. This, they said, assumed significance because it is settled that interim interference with an order of discharge is an extraordinary course, to be exercised only in the rarest of circumstances and upon clear grounds of illegality or perversity.

The representation reasoned that the grant of such wide and consequential relief - without the same being pleaded, and in a proceeding where ED is not a party - at the threshold stage and without hearing the discharged accused, materially fortified the applicant's reasonable apprehension that the present revision may not be approached with the requisite degree of judicial detachment, and that the matter may not receive a hearing that is manifestly impartial, as required by settled principles governing apparent bias.