Back
Arvind Kejriwal Seeks Excise Case Transfer Citing Judicial Bias
In a significant escalation in the protracted Delhi Excise Policy case,
National Convenor and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, along with senior leader Manish Sisodia and 21 other discharged accused, has written to Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya of the
. The letter, dated
, urges the transfer of the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) revision petition—challenging a trial court's discharge of all 23 accused—from the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another bench. Kejriwal cites a
"
, and
"
that the matter
"may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality,"
pointing to
interim orders, directions affecting non-parties, expedited timelines, and the judge's prior rulings in related matters that were later overturned by the
. This move invokes core principles of
amid a high-stakes political corruption probe that has gripped India's legal and political landscape for years.
The request comes days after Justice Sharma's , order issued notice on the CBI's plea, stayed certain trial court observations criticizing the investigating officer, and directed deferral of related proceedings—despite the not being a party. Legal observers see this as a test case for administrative transfers to preserve public confidence in judicial processes, especially in politically charged investigations.
The Delhi Excise Policy Controversy: A Recap
The saga traces back to the AAP-led Delhi government's 2021 Excise Policy, aimed at privatizing liquor sales to boost revenue and reform the trade. Implemented in November 2021 and abruptly withdrawn months later, the policy drew allegations of irregularities, including undue favors to private licensees at the expense of the public exchequer. Delhi Lieutenant-Governor V.K. Saxena recommended a probe, leading to a CBI FIR on , under provisions of the , accusing officials of tweaking tenders without approval.
The CBI alleged a conspiracy involving AAP leaders, with Manish Sisodia—former Deputy CM—as a key figure for "recommending" policy changes. Sisodia was arrested by CBI on , and later by ED on , spending over 530 days in jail. Arvind Kejriwal was arrested by CBI on , while in ED custody for the linked money laundering case, enduring about 156 days in jail across stints. He secured interim bail from the in the ED case and regular bail in the CBI matter on . Other prominent accused include leader K. Kavitha, businessman Abhishek Boinpally, and Vijay Nair.
Five voluminous charge sheets later, the Special CBI Judge heard arguments on framing charges for nearly two months across hearings ending . The trial court lambasted the CBI for "lacunae" in evidence, noting reliance on uncorroborated co-accused statements, repeated re-recording of approver testimonies to "fill gaps," and failure to establish conspiracy, especially against Sisodia and Kejriwal.
Trial Court's Landmark Discharge Order
On , the trial court discharged all 23 accused in a detailed order: Kuldeep Singh, Narender Singh, Vijay Nair, Abhishek Boinpally, Arun Pillai, Mootha Gautam, Sameer Mahendru, Manish Sisodia, Amandeep Singh Dhall, Arjun Pandey, Butchibabu Gorantla, Rajesh Joshi, Damodar Prasad Sharma, Prince Kumar, Arvind Kumar Singh, Chanpreet Singh, K. Kavitha, Arvind Kejriwal, Durgesh Pathak, Amit Arora, Vinod Chauhan, Ashish Chand Mathur, and Sarath Reddy. The court found no independent corroboration linking Kejriwal to any criminal conspiracy, criticized the CBI for investigation lapses, and recommended departmental action against the investigating officer for alleged unfair practices. It held that witness/approver statements at the charge stage lacked sufficiency, marking a rare clean sweep in a marquee CBI case.
Delhi High Court's Interim Intervention
The CBI swiftly filed a 50-page revision petition under , arguing trial court errors without specifying evidentiary flaws, per Kejriwal's letter. On —listed before Justice Sharma—the High Court, (no appearance for accused), issued notice returnable March 16, observed trial court remarks on witnesses/approvers and the IO as " erroneous," stayed those observations (beyond CBI's limited stay request), and directed the PMLA trial court to adjourn proceedings post the revision outcome. Justice Sharma noted "factual discrepancies" and "scathing remarks" against the IO as "foundationally misconceived" at the charge stage.
Grounds Cited in the Transfer Request
Kejriwal's letter meticulously outlines apprehensions. First, the March 9 order lacks reasons for "perversity" justifying
restraint on the discharge, an "extraordinary course" per settled law, only for "
" illegality. Second, granting "wide and consequential relief" on PMLA deferral—unpleaded, sans ED or accused hearing—
"materially fortifies the applicant’s
,"
violating bias principles.
“That the grant of such wide and consequential relief— without the same being pleaded, and in a proceeding where the ED is not a party—at the threshold stage and without hearing the discharged accused, materially fortifies the applicant’s that 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 settled principles governing ,” the letter states.
Third, atypical short response time (unlike 4-5 weeks in major revisions) suggests "predisposition." Critically, Justice Sharma's prior excise matters—dismissing bail for Sanjay Singh, Sisodia (CBI/ED), upholding Kejriwal's ED arrest, conspiracy views against Kavitha—were overturned thrice by SC (one referred to larger bench), granting accused relief.
“Importantly, several of these detailed judgments have been subsequently set aside by the Hon’ble
(three set aside, one referred to larger bench). In all the above matter – Hon’ble
granted relief to the accused persons. This further strengthens the Applicant’s apprehension that the approach earlier adopted in the same controversy has already been found legally vulnerable,”
it adds. The plea invokes the
"
in the mind of a fair-minded and informed litigant"
test, not personal predilection, seeking CJ's master-of-roster powers for transfer.
Legal Principles on Judicial Bias and Case Transfers
The request aligns with jurisprudence on , articulated in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987): justice must not only be done but seen to be done; recusal if a fair-minded observer perceives predisposition. Transfers under or administratively are granted on " ," as in . stays on discharges are exceptional ( ), demanding clear perversity. Non-party directions raise concerns ( ). Prior reversible views can fuel bias claims ( on judicial impartiality).
Broader Implications for the Justice System
This episode underscores vulnerabilities in high-profile cases blending politics and probes. For litigators, it signals aggressive use of transfer letters pre-formal petitions, emphasizing documentation of procedural anomalies. It spotlights risks of threshold comments inviting SC scrutiny, as seen here. Public confidence—pivotal post-S.C. observations on agency overreach—hangs in balance; unchecked apprehensions could erode it, while overzealous transfers might politicize benches. In white-collar crime practice, it reminds prosecutors of robust charge-sheet needs and judges of restraint in revisions. Amid AAP-central agency frictions, it fuels debates on judicial neutrality in federal probes.
Looking Ahead
The
has sought responses by March 16, but the CJ's roster decision could preempt. If transferred, it may expedite hearings; if not, a formal transfer petition looms. Outcomes will shape bias thresholds in political litigation, reinforcing that impartiality is the judiciary's cornerstone. As Kejriwal's letter concludes, the move safeguards
"public confidence in the administration of justice."
