New Delhi, April 5 – Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal and several other accused in the alleged Delhi excise policy case have filed a request for recusal before the Delhi High Court, seeking that the matter be heard by a bench other than that of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma.
Sources indicated that former Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal is likely to appear in person before the Delhi High Court on Monday to present arguments in support of the request for recusal.
This development comes amid ongoing proceedings in the Delhi High Court on a criminal revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which has challenged a trial court order discharging all 23 accused, including Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, in the corruption case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy.
Earlier, a single-judge bench of Justice Sharma had issued notice to the accused on the CBI's plea challenging the discharge order passed by the Rouse Avenue Court. Justice Sharma had also stayed the trial court's direction ordering departmental action against a CBI officer involved in the investigation, along with adverse remarks made against the probe agency.
The request for recusal has been filed even as the Delhi High Court is aware of related petitions, including a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking the removal of adverse observations made against it by the trial court while passing the discharge order.
The ED has argued that the remarks were irrelevant to the case and were recorded without giving the federal anti-money laundering agency an opportunity to be heard, despite the agency not being a party to the case at the time.
The trial court, in its detailed judgment delivered on February 27, had discharged all accused persons, holding that the evidence presented did not establish a conspiracy in the formulation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22 and that the policy appeared to be the result of a consultative and deliberative process.
However, the CBI has contended before the Delhi High Court that the discharge order was "perverse" and tantamount to an acquittal without trial, alleging that the policy was manipulated to benefit certain private liquor entities in exchange for alleged bribes.
Separately, Kejriwal has already approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice to reject his request for the transfer of the CBI's plea from the bench of Justice Sharma.
In his writ petition before the apex court, Kejriwal challenged the communication issued by the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court conveying that Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya – the master of the roster – had declined to reassign the matter on the ground that it had been allocated according to the roster.
The petition argued that the refusal to transfer the case gives rise to a "grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension" regarding the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings.
Kejriwal has also referred to earlier instances where bail was denied to certain accused by the same bench but later granted by the Supreme Court. He has additionally filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging certain observations made by the Delhi High Court while hearing the CBI's revision plea.