Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has approached the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s appeal in the excise policy case from the Delhi High Court bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another judge. Kejriwal has argued that he has a reasonable apprehension regarding the impartiality of the proceedings before the current bench.
The petition was filed after the CBI challenged a trial court order that had discharged Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and several others in the alleged irregularities related to Delhi’s now-scrapped excise policy. The trial court’s decision, delivered on February 27, had cleared Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 other accused in the case. In its order, the court criticised the CBI’s chargesheet, stating that it could not withstand judicial scrutiny and describing the investigation as having been “discredited in its entirety.”
Following that decision, the CBI moved the Delhi High Court seeking to challenge the trial court’s ruling. The matter has been listed for hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, Kejriwal requested that the case be transferred to a different bench of the High Court. He stated that he had a “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension” that the proceedings might not be conducted impartially before Justice Sharma.
Kejriwal’s plea referred to certain observations made by the judge during the initial hearing of the CBI’s revision petition. According to the petition, the judge recorded prima facie remarks suggesting that the trial court’s detailed order appeared “erroneous.” The plea argued that these observations were made before the respondents were given an opportunity to present their arguments.
The petition also pointed to the fact that Justice Sharma has previously dealt with several related matters arising from the same CBI investigation. These included petitions filed by Kejriwal challenging his arrest, bail applications filed by other AAP leaders, and cases involving other accused individuals linked to the alleged excise policy irregularities.
Among the cases handled by the same bench were proceedings involving Telangana Jagruti president K. Kavitha and other accused connected with the investigation.
Kejriwal’s petition contended that in a number of earlier proceedings, the judge had made observations that appeared to favour the prosecution. It also noted that some of those remarks had later been set aside by the Supreme Court or referred to larger benches for further consideration.
Earlier this month, on March 9, Justice Sharma had issued an order staying a trial court direction that recommended departmental action against the CBI officer who conducted the investigation in the liquor policy case. In the same order, the judge also issued notices to all 23 accused in response to the CBI’s challenge against their discharge.
While doing so, the High Court observed that certain findings recorded by the trial court during the stage of framing charges appeared prima facie incorrect and required further examination.
In his plea before the Supreme Court, Kejriwal emphasised that the request for transferring the case was not based on personal allegations against the judge. Instead, he argued that the petition was grounded in the legal principle that a litigant should have confidence in the fairness of the judicial process.
He stated that his apprehension should be evaluated according to the standard of whether a reasonable, fair-minded and informed person seeking justice might perceive a possibility of bias.
Manish Sisodia also approached the Supreme Court separately in connection with the same case. In his petition, the former deputy chief minister challenged the summons issued to him by the Delhi High Court in the proceedings initiated by the CBI.
The Supreme Court is yet to decide whether it will take up Kejriwal’s transfer request before the next scheduled hearing of the matter in the Delhi High Court.
