Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has approached the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Delhi High Court Chief Justice’s refusal to change the judge in the excise policy case overseen by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
NEW DELHI: Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court Chief Justice’s decision to deny his request for a change of judge in the excise policy case, currently overseen by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
The petition has been submitted under Article 32 of the Constitution. Kejriwal’s appeal contests both the Chief Justice’s refusal to transfer the case and Justice Sharma’s order from March 9 that temporarily halted a trial court’s directive to investigate the CBI officer involved in the excise policy case.
In the same ruling, Justice Sharma instructed the trial court to delay proceedings related to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case. She also noted that some findings made by the trial court while discharging Kejriwal and 22 other accused were mistaken.
Today, Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya of the Delhi High Court rejected Kejriwal’s request for a transfer, confirming this in a communication sent by the Registrar General on March 13 to the eight individuals seeking the transfer, including Kejriwal.
The letter quoted Chief Justice Upadhyaya as stating,
“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,”
In a letter dated March 11, Kejriwal expressed concern that if the case remains with Justice Sharma, it may lack the necessary impartiality and neutrality during hearings.
Previously, a trial court had discharged Kejriwal and 22 others in the excise policy case on February 27. The CBI has since contested this decision, which is currently under deliberation by Justice Sharma. On March 9, Justice Sharma issued a notice regarding the matter and suspended the trial court’s directive for departmental proceedings against the investigating CBI officer.
Justice Sharma also highlighted that some of the trial court’s observations in its ruling were erroneous and instructed the trial court to delay the PMLA proceedings, even though the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was not a party to the High Court.
In his communication to Chief Justice Upadhyaya, Kejriwal pointed out that the March 9 order does not clarify the “perversity” that necessitated such an ex parte restraint; he argued that interim interference with a discharge order is an extraordinary action to be taken only in exceptional circumstances and based on clear grounds of illegality and absurdity.
Kejriwal added that the issuance of broad and significant relief without it being formally requested, particularly in a case where the ED was not involved, raises reasonable doubts about the impartiality of the judge.
He emphasized that, typically, revision petitions of this importance allow parties four to five weeks to respond, and the court’s handling of this case suggests a possible bias. Furthermore, he noted that the same judge had previously addressed matters related to the excise policy and had expressed detailed prima facie views on the same factual circumstances.
The letter states,
“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,”
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
