Delhi High Court Chief Justice Declines Transfer Request in Excise Policy Case
The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, D K Upadhyaya, has firmly rejected a request to transfer the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) plea against the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal and other accused individuals in the high-profile excise policy case. The plea, which challenges a trial court's decision to discharge the accused, will continue to be heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma as originally scheduled, with the next hearing set for Monday.
Background and Key Developments
On March 11, Arvind Kejriwal, the national convener of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), along with AAP leader Manish Sisodia and other co-accused, submitted a representation to Chief Justice Upadhyaya. They sought the transfer of the CBI's petition from Justice Sharma to another judge, citing concerns over impartiality. Kejriwal expressed a "grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension" that the proceedings might not be neutral under Justice Sharma's bench.
This request followed significant judicial actions earlier in the month. On February 27, a trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 21 others in the excise policy case, criticizing the CBI's investigation as "wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny." Subsequently, on March 9, Justice Sharma's bench stayed the trial court's recommendation for departmental action against the CBI's investigating officer in the related liquor policy case. During this hearing, Justice Sharma issued notices to all 23 accused and indicated that certain observations by the trial court appeared "erroneous" and warranted further consideration.
Chief Justice's Rationale for Refusal
In response to the transfer request, Chief Justice Upadhyaya clarified that Justice Sharma is handling the CBI's petition in accordance with the court's standard roster system. He emphasized that there was no administrative basis to order a transfer, stating that any call for recusal must be made by the judge personally involved in the case. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to procedural norms and the autonomy of individual judges in managing their dockets.
Kejriwal's Concerns and Past Judicial Interactions
Kejriwal's representation detailed several points of contention regarding Justice Sharma's conduct. He argued that on the first day of the CBI's revision petition, Justice Sharma prematurely recorded a prima facie view that the trial court's order was "erroneous" without hearing the defense. Additionally, Kejriwal objected to Justice Sharma's direction to defer trial proceedings in a connected Enforcement Directorate (ED) case.
The representation further highlighted that Justice Sharma has presided over multiple cases stemming from the CBI's FIR in the excise policy matter, including petitions related to Kejriwal's arrest and bail applications for AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, as well as Telangana Jagruti president K Kavitha. Kejriwal claimed that in these instances, Justice Sharma "not even once" granted relief to any accused and had made "elaborate prima facie observations accepting the prosecution theory." He noted that three of Justice Sharma's previous judgments have been overturned by the Supreme Court, with one referred to a larger bench.
Broader Implications and Political Context
Kejriwal framed his transfer request as a matter of ensuring judicial fairness, asserting that his case is politically motivated. He stressed that the appeal was "not directed at any personal predilection" but aimed at addressing the "objective test of reasonable apprehension" in the mind of a litigant seeking justice. This development adds another layer to the ongoing legal and political saga surrounding the excise policy case, which has drawn significant public and media attention.
As the CBI's petition proceeds before Justice Sharma on Monday, all eyes will be on the Delhi High Court for further rulings. The outcome could have substantial implications for the accused, the prosecution's strategy, and the broader narrative of accountability in high-stakes corruption cases. The judiciary's handling of such sensitive matters continues to be a focal point in India's legal landscape.
