Kejriwal Moves Delhi HC Chief Justice Seeking Transfer of Excise Policy Case to 'Impartial' Bench
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener and former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, along with other accused in the high-profile excise policy case, has formally approached the Delhi High Court's Chief Justice seeking a significant judicial transfer. In a written representation dated March 11, they have requested that a criminal revision petition linked to the case be moved from the bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma to what they describe as an "impartial" bench.
Grounds for Seeking Transfer: Allegations of Bias and Procedural Concerns
The representation, submitted to Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya in his capacity as the "Master of the Roster", argues that such an administrative transfer is essential to maintain public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the judicial proceedings. Kejriwal and the co-accused have explicitly alleged bias against Justice Sharma and urged that the matter be reassigned to ensure impartial adjudication.
The document raises multiple procedural concerns stemming from the first hearing of the revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). This petition challenges the discharge of accused persons in the alleged excise policy scam. Key issues highlighted include:
- The court, during the initial hearing on March 9, issued notices and recorded a prima facie view that the trial court's detailed discharge order was "erroneous", despite the discharged accused not having been heard at that stage.
- Interim directions were granted affecting proceedings under the Enforcement Directorate (ED), even though the ED is not a party to the CBI's revision petition. The representation contends that linking the ED case without hearing the discharged accused has strengthened apprehensions about the judicial approach.
- An unusually brief timeframe for filing replies was allowed. Despite voluminous case records and multiple charge sheets, the court granted only one week for responses, which the accused argue is insufficient.
- Reference is made to prior orders by the same bench in related excise policy cases, noting detailed prima facie observations on issues central to the present petition, which the representation suggests indicates prejudgment.
Background: Recent Discharge and Ongoing Legal Battle
This development follows the recent discharge of Kejriwal and 22 other accused by a CBI court in the excise policy case. However, the legal battle intensified when the CBI filed a petition challenging this discharge. On Monday, the Delhi High Court, through Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, sought responses from Kejriwal and the other accused on the CBI's petition. The court issued notices to all parties and listed the matter for hearing on March 16.
In the same proceeding, Justice Sharma also stayed the observations made by the trial court against CBI officials involved in the case. The AAP, in its statement on Wednesday, confirmed the filing of the representation, emphasizing the pursuit of judicial fairness. The case continues to draw significant attention as it involves key political figures and central investigative agencies, with the accused now seeking a bench transfer to ensure what they perceive as a neutral judicial process.
