Back
Kejriwal's Bold Bid: Set to Argue Before Targeted Judge in
In a high-stakes legal maneuver, leader and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has personally filed an application in the seeking the of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from adjudicating the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) . The plea challenges a trial court's of Kejriwal and 22 others in the alleged Delhi Excise Policy corruption scam. Notably, Kejriwal is slated to appear in person to argue the on Monday, directly before Justice Sharma herself—the very judge he accuses of potential bias. This comes amid ongoing appeals by the CBI against the trial court order, with Justice Sharma already issuing observations critical of the lower court's findings. The development underscores escalating tensions in one of India's most politicized probes, raising pivotal questions on judicial impartiality in cases involving elected representatives.
Genesis of the Excise Policy Controversy
The saga traces back to the Delhi government's Excise Policy 2021-22, introduced to privatize liquor retail, boost revenue, and reform the trade in the national capital. Aimed at dismantling the state-controlled model, the policy granted licenses to private entities. However, allegations soon surfaced of irregularities: undue favors to select licensees, kickbacks, and corruption at the cost of public exchequer.
Lieutenant Governor Vinay Kumar Saxena ordered a CBI probe, leading to an FIR accusing officials, including then-Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, of tweaking the policy without competent approval to benefit licensees. The joined with a money laundering investigation. Sisodia was arrested by CBI on , and by ED days later on , enduring 530 days in custody. Kejriwal followed on , while already in ED custody, spending 156 days incarcerated amid the 2024 Lok Sabha elections before interim bail for campaigning and eventual release.
The case, politically charged, pits AAP against BJP-led central agencies, with accusations of vendetta timing.
Trial Court's Landmark Discharge Order
On
, the
delivered a scathing verdict in
, discharging all 23 accused—including Kejriwal, Sisodia, and BRS leader K Kavitha. Judge Dinesh Kumar Garg ruled the prosecution's material failed to establish an "
," deeming the policy a product of "consultative and deliberative process." Critically, the court lambasted the CBI:
"its case was wholly unable to survive
and stood discredited in its entirety."
It even recommended departmental action against the investigating officer, staying unrelated ED proceedings.
This order, running nearly 500 pages, marked a rare pre-trial setback for CBI/ED in a headline-grabbing scam.
CBI's Revision and Justice Sharma's Prima Facie Observations
Unappeased, CBI filed a revision petition before
, assigned to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's bench—per her roster for criminal matters involving MPs/MLAs. On
, issuing notice to all accused, Justice Sharma observed:
"certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of
appeared erroneous and needed consideration."
She stayed the trial court's adverse remarks against the CBI officer and deferred ED-related trial proceedings, citing "factual discrepancies" in witness/approver statements.
On , the court granted time for responses, with urging expedition, calling the an "exception order" tantamount to acquittal without trial. Senior counsel for Kejriwal sought more time given the order's heft. The ED separately seeks expunction of trial court remarks against it, arguing violation of as a non-party.
Failed Administrative Transfer and Supreme Court Interventions
Kejriwal didn't wait. On , alongside Sisodia and others, he wrote to Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya seeking transfer from Justice Sharma, citing impartiality concerns. CJ Upadhyaya declined, affirming roster allocation and that lies with the concerned judge. Undeterred, Kejriwal filed a writ under in for transfer, plus a challenging Justice Sharma's observations. These remain pending, with Kejriwal informing the High Court of their potential impact.
Grounds for Recusal: Apprehension of Bias
The fresh application, filed Sunday in person, invokes:
"grave, bona fide, and
that the matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality."
Kejriwal highlights Justice Sharma's prior bail denials to accused (later overturned by
), her
critique without hearing respondents, and stay on trial court directions. Other discharged accused may file similar pleas. This escalates the HC case listed at item 50.
The Hearing Ahead: Kejriwal to Argue In Person
Monday's listing before Justice Sharma includes the CBI main plea and applications. Kejriwal's adds drama, as does the ED's related petition (responses due , with warnings on defaults). Parallel ED summons compliance case sees HC notice to Kejriwal post his January trial acquittal.
Legal Framework for Judicial Recusal
jurisprudence, shaped by , tests " " of bias—objective, not fanciful ( ; ). Judges aren't recused lightly to prevent , but must yield if impartiality is reasonably doubted ( on bail reversals here). Roster by CJ as "master" binds unless administrative reassignment (here declined). offers SC oversight for transfers in exceptional bias cases (e.g., Union Carbide). Analysts note: past bail reversals alone may not suffice without specific prejudice evidence, but cumulative observations could sway.
This plea tests if remarks at notice stage prejudice final adjudication, echoing mandates.
Implications for High-Profile Political Cases
For legal professionals, this saga illuminates challenges in CBI/ED prosecutions: at charge stage viability post-SC's (framing needs only strong suspicion). Politicization risks eroding trust—CJI's roster insulates but fuels "bias" claims in legislator cases. Defense lawyers may increasingly invoke post-adverse interim orders; prosecutors push against delays prejudicing "system."
Broader: Questions ED/CBI coordination, policy probe timings amid elections. If granted, roster ripple effects; denial propels to SC, potentially consolidating. Impacts precedent on economic offences, where policy intent vs. corruption line blurs.
Conclusion: A Litmus Test for Judicial Neutrality
Kejriwal's gambit, argued face-to-face, spotlights the delicate balance of judicial independence versus perceived fairness in India's polarized legal arena. As Delhi HC navigates this, with SC looming, the excise saga reaffirms: in corruption probes entwined with politics, even apprehension tests democracy's judicial pillar. Legal eagles watch if "reasonable doubt" prevails over roster rigidity, shaping future high-decibel battles.
