After HC denial, Kejriwal approaches SC to transfer excise policy case

AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal approached the Supreme Court for changing excise policy case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. Kejriwal approached the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution. Earlier, Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya has denied Arvind Kejriwal’s request to transfer the excise policy case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to some other Bench. The High Court’s Registrar General sent a communication on March 13 to eight people who sought the transfer. 

“The petition is assigned to the judge as per the current roster. Any call of recusal has to be taken by the judge. I, however, do not find any reason to transfer the petition by passing an order on the administrative side,” the letter quoted Chief Justice Upadhyaya as saying.

In a letter written on March 11, Kejriwal expressed apprehension that if the matter stays with Justice Sharma, the “matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality”. A trial court had on February 27 discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused in the excise policy case.

CBI challenged the order and the same is currently being heard by Justice Sharma. On March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice in the matter and stayed the trial court direction for department proceedings against the CBI officer who investigated the case.

Justice Sharma also said a prima facie finding that some of the observations made by the trial court in its order were erroneous. She a; sp directed the trial court to defer the PMLA proceedings (which are based CBI’s FIR).

Kejriwal has said that the order of March 9 does not disclose any reasons as to what “perversity” warranted an ex parte restraint, and the order assumes significance because it is settled that interim interference with an order of discharge is an extraordinary course to be exercised only in rarest of rare circumstances and upon clear grounds of illegality and perversity.

He added that in the same order, the High Court also issued a direction to the trial court to defer the PMLA proceedings even though the ED was not a party before the High Court. 

“That the grant of such wide and consequential relief — without the same being pleaded, and in a proceeding where the ED is not a party — at the threshold stage and without hearing the discharged accused, materially fortifies 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,” the letter states.

Kejriwal has also said that in the normal course, in a revision petition of this magnitude, at least four to five weeks is granted to parties to file their response, but the Court’s approach in this case “conveys an apprehension of predisposition”.  The AAP leader added that the same judge had earlier dealt with the excise policy matters and “expressed detailed prima facie views on the same nucleus of facts and roles”.

“Importantly, several of these detailed judgments have been subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court (three set aside, one referred to larger bench). In all the above matter – Supreme Court granted relief to the accused persons. This further strengthens the Applicant’s apprehension that the approach earlier adopted in the same controversy has already been found legally vulnerable,” the letter states.