Arvind Kejriwal moves Supreme Court after Delhi HC rejects bench-change plea in excise policy case

The bench change request was denied in a communication issued by the high court’s registrar general, Arun Bhardwaj, on March 13.

Delhi high court chief justice DK Upadhyaya has denied the request of former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and others to transfer the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s appeal against their discharge in the excise policy case by a trial court to a different bench from the current bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

The CBI’s appeal was listed before a bench of justice Sharma on March 9, who is currently on the roster of cases involving MPs and MLAs. (Sanchit Khanna/Hindustan Times)

Following the refusal, Kejriwal, along with former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, moved the Supreme Court seeking directions to transfer the CBI’s appeal from justice Sharma’s bench to another bench. In the petition, Kejriwal also challenged the high court’s March 9 order issuing notice in the CBI’s appeal against the trial court’s observations and staying departmental action against the CBI’s investigating officer, contending that the order was passed ex parte, without hearing them, and apprehended an unfair hearing by justice Sharma’s bench.

According to people aware of the development, the bench change request was denied in a communication issued by the high court’s registrar general, Arun Bhardwaj, on March 13.

The communication stated that the chief justice had observed that the CBI petition had already been assigned to justice Sharma’s bench in accordance with the current roster, adding that any decision on recusal would have to be taken by the concerned judge.

“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 do not find any reason to transfer the petition by passing an order on the administrative side,” the communication stated.

The CBI’s appeal was listed before a bench of justice Sharma on March 9, who is currently on the roster of cases involving MPs and MLAs. The plea is listed for hearing on Monday, as per the cause list.

Kejriwal, along with others, had on Wednesday written to justice Upadhyaya seeking the transfer of the case, claiming to have “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension” that the hearing in the matter “would not be impartial or neutral”. The representation said that during the first hearing on March 9, 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.

On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and 21 others, concluding that CBI’s material did not even disclose a prima facie case, let alone a grave suspicion. In his 601-page order, special judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue also directed a departmental inquiry against the “erring investigating officer” who framed charges against the accused in the absence of material evidence, holding that the IO abused his official position to conduct an unfair investigation.

The agency had then approached the high court, assailing the trial court’s order on the ground that the verdict was passed by “ignoring” the evidence gathered by the agency, the findings were “inherently wrong”, and the agency collected several documents, examined witnesses, collected e-mails, WhatsApp chats and its evidence was not in the “air”.

The high court stayed till March 16 the trial court’s order directing departmental action against CBI’s investigating officer and observations against him, noting that the remarks were “prima facie foundationally misconceived, especially when made at the stage of charge itself”. The judge had also requested that the trial court defer the Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering case stemming from the CBI case and await the outcome of the CBI’s appeal against the February 27 verdict.