The Delhi High Court has refused Arvind Kejriwal’s request to shift the excise policy case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another Bench. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya said the case was assigned as per the roster and found no reason to transfer it administratively.
The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, has declined a request made by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal seeking the transfer of the excise policy case from the Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another judge.
The request was made after Kejriwal raised concerns about the possibility of bias if the matter continued to be heard by Justice Sharma. However, the Chief Justice found no valid reason to change the Bench and decided that the case would continue before the same judge as per the existing roster of the High Court.
The decision was communicated through a letter dated March 13 sent by the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court. The letter was addressed to eight individuals who had requested the transfer of the case, including Kejriwal himself.
In the communication, the Registrar General quoted the Chief Justice explaining why the transfer request was rejected. The letter stated,
“The petition is assigned to the Hon’ble judge as per the current roster. Any call of recusal has to be taken by the Hon’ble judge. I, however, do not find any reason to transfer the petition by passing an order on the administrative side.”
Earlier, on March 11, Kejriwal had written a letter expressing his apprehension regarding the hearing of the case by Justice Sharma. He argued that if the matter remained before the same Bench, it could affect the perception of fairness in the proceedings. In the letter, he stated that if the case continues before Justice Sharma,
“matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality”.
The controversy arises from a recent order passed by a trial court on February 27, which discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused persons in the Delhi excise policy case. Following this order, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenged the discharge before the Delhi High Court.
The revision petition filed by the CBI is currently being heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. On March 9, the High Court issued notice in the matter and passed certain interim directions.
Justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s direction that had ordered departmental proceedings against the CBI officer who investigated the case. The High Court also made preliminary observations indicating that some of the findings recorded by the trial court in its discharge order appeared to be incorrect.
Additionally, the High Court directed the trial court to defer proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which are based on the FIR registered by the CBI in connection with the excise policy case.
Kejriwal, in his letter seeking transfer of the case, criticised the order passed on March 9. He argued that the order did not clearly explain the legal grounds on which such interim relief was granted. According to him, the order did not specify what “perversity” justified the High Court’s intervention at such an early stage.
He further pointed out that interference with a discharge order at the interim stage is considered an extraordinary step in criminal law and is usually exercised only in rare and exceptional circumstances where there is clear illegality or serious error.
Kejriwal also raised objections to the High Court’s direction to defer the PMLA proceedings, noting that the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which handles money laundering cases, was not even a party before the High Court in the present proceedings.
In his letter, he argued that such wide relief granted without a request from the parties and without hearing the discharged accused raised concerns about fairness. The letter stated,
“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.”
Kejriwal also highlighted the timeline given for filing responses in the case. He pointed out that normally in a revision petition of such importance, courts provide at least four to five weeks for parties to file their replies.
However, according to him, the approach adopted by the High Court in this matter suggested a sense of urgency that created further apprehension. In his communication, he said that the court’s conduct
“conveys an apprehension of predisposition”.
Another concern raised by Kejriwal related to Justice Sharma’s earlier involvement in cases connected to the same excise policy controversy. He noted that the judge had previously heard related matters and had expressed detailed prima facie opinions regarding the same set of facts and allegations.
Kejriwal’s letter further stated that several of those earlier judgments were later set aside by the Supreme Court of India. He pointed out that in multiple instances, the Supreme Court had granted relief to the accused persons in cases arising from the same policy dispute.
Referring to this history, the letter 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.”
Despite these concerns, the Chief Justice concluded that there was no administrative basis to transfer the matter to another Bench and that the issue of recusal, if any, must be decided by the judge hearing the case.
As a result, the CBI’s challenge to the trial court’s discharge order in the Delhi excise policy case will continue to be heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court.
Click Here to Read More Reports on CJI Surya Kant
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
