New Delhi, March 11 Former Delhi chief minister and AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal, along with other accused in the excise policy case, on Wednesday urged the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, D K Upadhyaya, to transfer the CBI's plea against their discharge in the case by the trial court from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another judge, according to the party.
In a representation to the chief justice, Kejriwal claimed he has a "grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension" that the hearing in the matter would not be impartial and neutral.
AAP leaders, including Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, have, in separate representations submitted in the High Court through their lawyers, sought the transfer of the case to an "impartial" bench of the High Court, the party said in a statement on Wednesday.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others, pulling up the CBI by saying its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
On March 9, Justice Sharma's bench stayed the trial court's recommendation on the initiation of departmental action against the CBI's investigating officer in the liquor policy case.
Issuing notice to all 23 accused on CBI's plea against their discharge, Justice Sharma said certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appeared erroneous and needed consideration.
"It is respectfully prayed that Crl. Rev. Petition No. 134 of 2026 (CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.) may be transferred from the Bench presided by Hon'ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to any other appropriate Bench, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice and to maintain the confidence of litigants and the public in the fairness of the process," the representation by Kejriwal said.
He claimed his apprehension was based on the judge's past conduct and said that on the very first day of the CBI's revision petition against his discharge, Justice Sharma proceeded to record a prima facie view that the trial court's detailed order was "erroneous", even without hearing the other side.
Justice Sharma, Kejriwal's representation contended, did not disclose any "specific perversity" when she stayed the trial court's directions against the CBI official.
He also objected to Justice Sharma's direction on deferring the trial proceedings in the connected ED case.
Interim interference with an order of discharge is an extraordinary course, which could be exercised only in the rarest of circumstances on clear grounds of illegality or perversity, the representation asserted.
It emphasised that Justice Sharma has decided multiple cases arising from the CBI FIR, including Kejriwal's petition against his arrest and bail applications by AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh as well as Telangana Jagruti president K Kavitha, and "not even once" given relief to any of the accused.
The representation added that Justice Sharma, while dealing with these earlier pleas, has already recorded "elaborate prima facie observations accepting the prosecution theory on critical questions".
It informed the chief justice that three of the judgements have been set aside by the Supreme Court and one has been referred to a larger bench.
In the representation, Kejriwal said the case against him was politically motivated and his request to transfer the pending matter to another judge was "not directed at any personal predilection, but at the objective test of reasonable apprehension in the mind of a fair-minded and informed litigant seeking justice."
"The undersigned, Sh. Arvind Kejriwal, Respondent No. 18, respectfully seeks administrative intervention for the transfer of Crl. Rev. 134/2026, presently listed before the Bench presided by Hon'ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, on the ground of a grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension that the matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality.
"The concern is not only personal, it is institutional'-- justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done," it said.