Delhi High Court Chief Justice Upholds Roster System, Denies Kejriwal's Transfer Request
In a significant development, Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, DK Upadhyay, has firmly declined a request from former chief minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal to transfer the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) appeal in the excise policy case. The appeal is currently being heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, and the Chief Justice cited the court's established roster-based system for case allocation as the primary reason for the refusal.
Kejriwal Escalates Matter to Supreme Court After High Court Rejection
Following the denial, AAP functionaries confirmed that Kejriwal has now approached the Supreme Court with a transfer petition. This move underscores the escalating legal battle surrounding the excise policy case, which has seen multiple twists and turns in recent months.
In a formal communication issued to Kejriwal and other parties who submitted a representation on the administrative side, Chief Justice Upadhyaya elaborated on his decision. He pointed out that the matter had been assigned to Justice Sharma in strict accordance with the existing roster, and he found no substantive grounds to order a transfer at this stage.
"The petition is assigned to the Hon'ble judge as per the current roster. Any call of recusal has to be taken by the Hon'ble judge. I, however, do not find any reason to transfer the petition by passing an order on the administrative side," the Chief Justice's response stated.
Background of the Excise Policy Case and Legal Proceedings
The CBI's appeal is scheduled for hearing before Justice Sharma on Monday, adding urgency to the proceedings. This appeal stems from a Delhi court order on February 27, which discharged Kejriwal, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 other accused in the excise policy case. The discharge occurred at the stage of framing charges, before the trial could commence.
In a detailed order spanning nearly 600 pages, the trial court critically questioned the evidence presented by the CBI and rejected allegations of an overarching conspiracy or criminal intent in the formulation of the Delhi excise policy. Additionally, the court recommended departmental proceedings against the investigating officer, a move that has since been stayed by the High Court.
The CBI, in its appeal to the Delhi High Court, labeled the trial court's order as "illegal on the face of it" and accused the court of conducting a "mini-trial" while disregarding what it claimed was a duly established conspiracy. The High Court has issued notices to Kejriwal, Sisodia, and the other accused, though it did not grant a stay on the discharge order itself.
Kejriwal's Representation and Allegations of Bias
On March 11, Kejriwal, Sisodia, and some other accused made a representation to Chief Justice Upadhyaya, seeking the transfer of the CBI's plea from Justice Sharma to another judge they deemed "impartial." The representation argued that the accused had "grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension" that the hearing would not be impartial and neutral.
It further contended that Justice Sharma had not provided any relief to the accused in past proceedings and had commented on the merits of the case, potentially indicating bias. However, the Chief Justice's rejection emphasizes that such recusal decisions rest with the individual judge, not administrative orders.
Ongoing Legal Challenges and Broader Implications
Meanwhile, Manish Sisodia has separately challenged the notice issued to him by the Delhi High Court in the CBI appeal. The High Court has noted that certain observations and findings of the trial court at the framing of charges stage appear prima facie erroneous and warrant further consideration.
This case highlights the intricate balance between judicial independence, roster management, and perceptions of fairness in high-profile legal battles. As the matter progresses to the Supreme Court, it continues to draw significant attention in political and legal circles, with potential implications for governance and accountability in Delhi.
