Kejriwal writes to Delhi HC Chief Justice to transfer excise policy case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal, along with senior leader Manish Sisodia and several other accused in the Delhi excise policy case, has written to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court seeking transfer of the matter from the court of Justice SwaranaKanta Sharma to another bench.

In the letter, they have argued that the case should be heard by an impartial bench to ensure fairness and protect public confidence in the administration of justice, while pointing out that several orders passed by the judge in the same excise-related matter have been overturned by the Supreme Court.

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”.

Kejriwal stated the request was made due to a serious and genuine concern that the matter may not receive a completely impartial hearing. They requested that the case titled “CBI v. Kuldeep Singh &Ors.” be placed before another bench to ensure fairness and maintain public confidence in the justice system.

The letter notes that Arvind Kejriwal was named as Accused No. 18 in the CBI FIR registered on August 17, 2022, and was arrested on June 26, 2024. The trial court heard arguments on charges for nearly two months across five charge sheets involving 23 accused persons before reserving its order on February 12, 2026. On February 27, 2026, the Special CBI Court passed a detailed order discharging all 23 accused.

Referring to the proceedings before the Delhi High Court, Kejriwal stated that the CBI filed a revision petition of about 50 pages challenging the discharge order. However, according to the letter, the petition did not point out any specific errors in the trial court’s findings or evidence that would justify setting aside the discharge order.

He further stated that during the first hearing on 9 March 2026, the High Court issued notice and recorded a prima facie view that the trial court’s detailed order was erroneous without hearing the discharged accused.

The High Court also stayed the trial court’s observations and directions against the investigating officer, including directions related to possible departmental action, even though the CBI had sought only a limited stay.

Kejriwal also pointed out that the High Court directed the trial court dealing with the related Enforcement Directorate (ED) case to adjourn proceedings until the High Court considered the CBI revision petition. The letter states that the ED was not a party to the revision proceedings and that the CBI had not sought such relief.

The letter also points out that although some of these cases arose from Enforcement Directorate proceedings, those proceedings were based on the same CBI FIR and involved the same underlying allegations that are now central to the CBI’s revision petition against the discharge order.

The applicants stated that the request for transfer is aimed at ensuring that the case is heard with neutrality and to protect public confidence in the administration of justice. They also noted that the Chief Justice, as the Master of the Roster, has the authority to allocate matters and assign them to appropriate benches.

The former CM of Delhi and 22 other accused were recently discharged in the excise policy case by a CBI court. On Monday, the Delhi HC sought the stand of Kejriwal and other accused in the case on a petition by the CBI challenging their discharge by the trial court.