Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has written to Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya seeking transfer of CBI’s revision petition in the excise policy case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s bench, citing apprehension that the matter may not receive an impartial hearing.
FORMER Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has written to Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya seeking the transfer of the CBI’s revision petition in the excise policy case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s bench to another judge.
In a representation dated March 11, Kejriwal cited a “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension” that the matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality. Manish Sisodia and other accused have filed similar representations through their lawyers.
The CBI had filed a revision petition challenging the February 27 discharge of all 23 accused, including Kejriwal, Sisodia and K Kavitha, by the Rouse Avenue Court. When Justice Sharma heard the petition on March 9, she issued notice to the accused and stayed the trial court’s recommendation for departmental action against the CBI’s investigating officer. The court also observed that certain findings of the trial court regarding witness statements appeared “prima facie erroneous.”
Kejriwal’s representation contends that the March 9 order did not disclose any “specific perversity” warranting ex parte intervention. Interim interference with a discharge order, he argued, should be exercised only in the rarest circumstances on clear grounds of illegality.
The former Chief Minister pointed out that Justice Sharma has decided multiple matters arising from the same CBI FIR, including his petition against arrest and bail applications by Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and Kavitha, and “not even once” granted relief to any accused. Three of those judgments, he noted, were set aside by the Supreme Court, and one was referred to a larger bench.
Kejriwal also objected to Justice Sharma’s direction asking the trial court dealing with the connected ED case to defer proceedings until the High Court decides the CBI’s revision petition, even though the ED was not a party to the proceedings before her.
The representation stated that, “The concern is not only personal, it is institutional — justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.” Kejriwal clarified that his request was “not directed at any personal predilection, but at the objective test of reasonable apprehension in the mind of a fair-minded and informed litigant seeking justice.”
The trial court had discharged all 23 accused on February 27, holding that the CBI failed to establish a prima facie case. Special Judge Jitendra Singh had criticised the agency for constructing a conspiracy narrative based on conjecture rather than evidence and observed that Kejriwal was implicated without any cogent material.
The matter is listed for hearing on March 16.
[Read LawCurate’s previous report on the discharge order here.]
Case title: CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors., Crl. Rev. Petition No. 134 of 2026
Leave a Reply