Arvind Kejriwal has written to the Delhi High Court Chief Justice requesting the transfer of the excise policy case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. He raised concerns that the case may not receive a hearing marked by “impartiality and neutrality.”
Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has written to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, requesting that the excise policy case currently pending before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma be transferred to another Bench.
In a letter dated March 11, Kejriwal expressed concern about the fairness of the proceedings if the case continues to remain before Justice Sharma. He stated that he has a genuine apprehension that if the matter remains before the same judge, the
“matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality”.
The request comes in connection with the controversial Delhi excise policy case in which a trial court had earlier discharged Kejriwal and several others. On February 27, a trial court cleared Kejriwal and 22 other accused persons in the case, finding insufficient grounds to proceed against them.
However, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenged this discharge order before the Delhi High Court. The revision petition filed by the agency is currently being heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
During the initial hearing on March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice on the CBI’s plea and passed an interim order. The Court stayed the trial court’s direction that had called for departmental proceedings against the CBI officer who investigated the matter. Along with this, the High Court also recorded a prima facie observation that certain remarks made by the trial court while discharging the accused appeared to be erroneous.
In the same order, the High Court also directed the trial court to defer proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which are based on the FIR registered by the CBI.
Following these developments, Kejriwal addressed a letter to the Chief Justice raising concerns about the manner in which interim relief was granted. In his letter, he argued that the order dated March 9 did not clearly explain the reasons behind the Court’s intervention.
According to the letter, the order of March 9 does not disclose any reasons as to what “perversity” warranted an ex parte restraint, and the order assumes significance because it is settled that interim interference with an order of discharge is an extraordinary course to be exercised only in rarest of rare circumstances and upon clear grounds of illegality and perversity.
Kejriwal further stated that the High Court had passed directions affecting proceedings under the PMLA even though the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was not a party to the case before the Court.
He highlighted this aspect in his letter, stating,
“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 reasonable apprehension 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 apparent bias,”
the letter states.
The Aam Aadmi Party leader also pointed out that in cases of this scale and importance, courts usually provide adequate time for all parties to file their responses and arguments.
In the present case, however, he argued that the approach adopted by the Court suggested a possible pre-judgment of the issues involved.
Kejriwal stated that in the normal course, in a revision petition of this magnitude, at least four to five weeks is granted to parties to file their response, but the Court’s approach in this case “conveys an apprehension of predisposition”.
Another point raised in the letter concerns Justice Sharma’s earlier involvement in matters related to the same excise policy controversy. Kejriwal noted that the judge had previously dealt with several cases arising out of the same set of facts and had made detailed prima facie observations regarding the roles of different individuals involved.
He further pointed out that multiple decisions delivered earlier in connection with the same issue were subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court of India.
Referring to these developments, Kejriwal stated,
“Importantly, several of these detailed judgments have been subsequently set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (three set aside, one referred to larger bench). In all the above matter – Hon’ble Supreme Court 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,”
the letter states.
ALSO READ: Court Directs Case Against Arvind Kejriwal for Alleged Misuse of Public Funds
Through the letter, Kejriwal has urged the Chief Justice to consider transferring the case to another Bench of the Delhi High Court to ensure that the matter is heard with complete neutrality and judicial fairness.
The excise policy case has been one of the most high-profile legal controversies involving the Delhi government and central investigating agencies. The outcome of the High Court proceedings will determine whether the trial court’s discharge of Kejriwal and other accused persons will stand or whether the investigation agencies will be allowed to proceed further in the matter.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Arvind Kejriwal
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
