Kejriwal asks chief justice of Delhi HC to transfer CBI appeal against excise case discharge to another bench

Arvind Kejriwal and others request the Delhi High Court to transfer a CBI plea against their discharge in an excise policy case to a different bench.

New Delhi

AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal. (Sanchit Khanna/HT Photo)

Former Delhi chief minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal, along with others previously accused in an excise policy case, on Wednesday wrote to the chief justice of Delhi High Court, DK Upadhyaya, asking for a transfer of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI’s) plea against their discharge by a trial court to a different bench, from the currently assigned bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

In a representation to Upadhyaya, Kejriwal claimed he has a “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension” that the hearing in the matter would not be impartial and neutral.

On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others, pulling up the CBI by saying its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety. On March 9, justice Sharma’s bench stayed the trial court’s recommendation on the initiation of departmental action against the CBI’s investigating officer in the liquor policy case.

Issuing notice to all 23 accused on CBI’s plea against their discharge, justice Sharma said certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appeared erroneous and needed consideration.

“It is respectfully prayed that Crl. Rev. Petition No. 134 of 2026 (CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.) may be transferred from the Bench presided by Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to any other appropriate Bench, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice and to maintain the confidence of litigants and the public in the fairness of the process,” the representation by Kejriwal said.

He said that during the first hearing on 9 March 2026, the high court issued notice and recorded a prima facie view that the trial court’s detailed order was erroneous without hearing the discharged accused. The petition has also pointed out that the high court directed the trial court dealing with the related Enforcement Directorate (ED) case to adjourn proceedings until the high court considered the CBI revision petition. The representation said that the ED was not a party to the revision proceedings and that the CBI had not sought such relief.