The Delhi High Court transferred the excise policy case involving Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and other AAP leaders to Justice Manoj Jain after Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed reassignment following initiation of contempt proceedings.
The excise policy matter pending before the Delhi High Court where multiple Aam Aadmi Party leaders, including Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, are accused has now been assigned to Justice Manoj Jain.
The case transfer followed an order by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who had been hearing the matter earlier. She directed that the file be placed before a different Bench after contempt proceedings were initiated against Kejriwal, Sisodia, and other AAP leaders.
Factual Backgrounds:
The excise policy controversy traces back to 2022, when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a First Information Report alleging irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22. The agency alleged that the policy was designed to facilitate monopolisation and cartelisation in Delhi’s liquor trade.
The CBI further claimed that AAP leaders received kickbacks from liquor manufacturers and distributors through deliberate changes and loopholes introduced into the policy framework. Based on related allegations, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) later registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The investigation ultimately resulted in the arrest of several opposition leaders, which drew criticism from certain political quarters. Critics alleged that the proceedings were driven by political motives.
As per the allegations by the investigating agencies, a criminal conspiracy was allegedly formed by AAP leaders including Kejriwal and Sisodia along with unidentified private individuals and entities during the drafting stage of the excise policy. It was alleged that specific loopholes were intentionally incorporated to benefit certain liquor licence holders and the alleged conspirators after the tender process had been completed.
On February 27 this year, a trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused persons. The CBI challenged that order before the Delhi High Court, where the matter was first listed before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
On March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice and stayed the trial court’s direction to initiate departmental proceedings against the CBI officer who had investigated the case. She also made a prima facie observation that certain findings recorded by the trial court appeared to be incorrect. In addition, Justice Sharma directed that proceedings under the PMLA based on the CBI case be deferred.
After these developments, Kejriwal and several co-accused, including Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai, and Chanpreet Singh Rayat, moved applications seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal from the case.
The applicants argued that there was a conflict of interest and expressed concerns about bias. Kejriwal, in particular, contended that Justice Sharma should recuse herself because her son and daughter were empanelled as counsel for the Central government. He also alleged that the judge had attended conferences organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, which he said was ideologically opposed to the Aam Aadmi Party.
Kejriwal also argued that earlier decisions delivered by Justice Sharma had been set aside by the Supreme Court. Relying on principles related to recusal, he submitted that even an apprehension of bias is a relevant factor for consideration. In support, he cited a prior instance involving an Enforcement Directorate request for recusal in a money laundering matter connected to AAP leader Satyendar Jain, where recusal was reportedly granted based on perceived bias rather than any allegation undermining judicial integrity.
Justice Sharma, however, rejected the recusal applications on April 20 and decided to continue hearing the case.
Following this, Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak opted to boycott proceedings before Justice Sharma.
On May 14, Justice Sharma initiated contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, Sisodia, and other AAP leaders, including Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra, and Saurabh Bharadwaj. The contempt action was triggered by allegations that defamatory and derogatory statements had been made against her on social media in connection with the excise policy case.
Taking into account the contempt proceedings and the ensuing controversy, Justice Sharma directed that the excise policy matter be transferred to another Bench of the High Court. The case was thereafter reassigned to Justice Manoj Jain.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE