Kejriwal Files Formal Request for Judicial Transfer in High-Profile Excise Case
In a significant legal development, former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has submitted a formal representation to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, seeking the transfer of the excise policy case from the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another judicial officer. The request is based on what Kejriwal describes as "a grave, bona fide and reasonable apprehension" that the matter may not receive a hearing characterized by the necessary impartiality and neutrality required in judicial proceedings.
Background of the Legal Battle
The excise case has been a protracted legal saga involving multiple high-profile political figures. Kejriwal was initially arrested in June 2024 in connection with the case and was subsequently chargesheeted in July of that year. The legal arguments concerning the charges began in December 2025, culminating in a detailed order on February 27, 2026, in which the special court discharged Kejriwal and all other accused individuals. Among those discharged were former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and AAP's Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Singh.
Contentions in the Representation
Kejriwal's representation specifically addresses the proceedings before the Delhi High Court, where the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a revision petition challenging the discharge order. According to the representation, this petition, spanning approximately 50 pages, was instituted "without identifying any accused-specific perversity, nor pinpointing the particular findings, paragraphs, or evidentiary errors which would justify revisional jurisdiction."
The representation highlights that during the first short hearing on March 9, 2026, the High Court not only issued notice but also proceeded to record a prima facie view that the trial court's detailed order was "erroneous" without hearing any of the discharged accused. Furthermore, the court stayed the trial court's directions and observations regarding the investigating officer, including the initiation of departmental action, without addressing the context and reasoning recorded by the trial court for such findings.
Legal Arguments Presented
Kejriwal and other AAP functionaries argue that the High Court's order did not disclose any specific reasons as to what particular perversity warranted such ex parte restraint. They emphasize that this is particularly significant because it is a settled legal principle that interim interference with an order of discharge is an extraordinary measure, to be exercised only in the rarest of circumstances and upon clear grounds of illegality or perversity.
The representation further reasons that the grant of such wide and consequential relief—without it being specifically pleaded, in a proceeding where the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is not a party, at the threshold stage, and without hearing the discharged accused—materially fortifies the applicant's reasonable apprehension. They contend that this suggests 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 established principles governing apparent bias.
Implications and Next Steps
This move by Kejriwal underscores the ongoing legal and political tensions surrounding the excise policy case. The request for transfer raises important questions about judicial processes and the perception of fairness in high-stakes political litigation. The Delhi High Court Chief Justice's decision on this representation will be closely watched, as it could have significant implications for the future trajectory of the case and the broader legal landscape involving political figures.
The excise case continues to be a focal point in Delhi's political arena, with potential ramifications for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and its leadership. As the legal proceedings unfold, all eyes will remain on the judicial system's handling of such sensitive matters, balancing legal rigor with the principles of justice and impartiality.
