Former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and several co-accused in the Delhi excise policy case failed to secure a transfer of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s appeal after Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya of the Delhi High Court declined their request to move the matter to a different bench.The Chief Justice ruled that the petition challenging their discharge had already been assigned to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma under the court’s established roster system and that no administrative grounds existed to shift the case elsewhere. The decision keeps the CBI’s appeal against a trial court order discharging Kejriwal and others before the same bench that has been hearing the matter.
Kejriwal and former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia had sought the transfer through a representation addressed to the Chief Justice, arguing that the case should be heard by what they described as an “impartial” bench. Their plea expressed apprehension about the fairness of proceedings if the matter continued before Justice Sharma, citing observations made during earlier hearings.
The Chief Justice responded that judicial assignments in the High Court are governed by a roster determined by the administrative authority of the court. According to the communication issued to the petitioners, the case had been placed before Justice Sharma as part of the existing roster and therefore did not warrant reassignment through administrative intervention. The order also indicated that any question regarding recusal would have to be decided by the judge hearing the case rather than through a transfer order issued by the Chief Justice.
Legal proceedings in the excise policy controversy have evolved through several stages over the past two years, drawing sustained political and judicial attention. The case centres on allegations of irregularities in the formulation and implementation of Delhi’s liquor policy, which had been introduced to overhaul the city’s retail alcohol distribution system. Investigators alleged that the policy allowed undue benefits to certain private players and involved a broader conspiracy among officials, politicians and business figures.
A special CBI court at Rouse Avenue had delivered a significant ruling on February 27 when it discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 other accused persons at the stage of framing charges. The court’s order, running to several hundred pages, concluded that the investigative material placed before it did not establish a criminal conspiracy or sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. The judge also criticised aspects of the investigative process and suggested departmental action against the investigating officer.
The Central Bureau of Investigation quickly challenged that decision before the Delhi High Court, contending that the trial court had erred in assessing the evidence and had effectively conducted what it described as a “mini-trial” while evaluating the charges. The agency argued that the discharge order overlooked key material gathered during the investigation and that the case warranted a full trial to determine culpability.
Proceedings in the High Court have since focused on the CBI’s appeal as well as associated legal questions raised by the parties. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notices to the discharged accused and considered submissions regarding the findings of the trial court. During an earlier hearing, the High Court also stayed certain critical remarks made by the trial court against the investigating agency, indicating that those observations required further scrutiny.
The transfer request filed by Kejriwal and others formed part of this wider legal battle. Their representation contended that comments made during the High Court proceedings reflected a predisposition regarding the merits of the trial court’s decision. The petitioners argued that reassignment to another bench would help maintain confidence in the judicial process.
Court administrators, however, emphasised the importance of the roster mechanism in maintaining consistency and neutrality in case allocation. Under this system, cases are distributed among judges based on predetermined subject categories and schedules, ensuring that administrative intervention in judicial assignments remains limited.
With the Chief Justice declining the transfer request, the matter continues before Justice Sharma, who is expected to examine the arguments surrounding the CBI’s challenge to the discharge order. The High Court’s deliberations are likely to determine whether the trial court’s findings withstand appellate scrutiny or whether the case should proceed toward trial.
The dispute has drawn sustained attention because of the political prominence of those named in the investigation and the broader debate over accountability in governance. Kejriwal, leader of the Aam Aadmi Party and a central figure in Delhi politics for more than a decade, has consistently denied wrongdoing and characterised the allegations as politically motivated.