Delhi excise policy case: Kejriwal, Sisodia escalate to SC after HC CJ rejects judge transfer plea
Delhi excise policy case: The scrapped 2021 Delhi excise policy sought to boost revenue through liquor sales privatisation but drew fire for alleged irregularities, kickbacks to favored licensees and massive losses to the state exchequer, triggering CBI and ED investigations.
Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia have moved the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court Chief Justice's refusal to transfer the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) excise policy case plea from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's bench to another judge. The duo cited 'grave apprehension' over impartiality, following a March 11 representation to Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, who dismissed it stating the matter aligns with the court's roster and no administrative grounds exist for reassignment. The CBI petition, listed before Justice Sharma on March 16 (Monday), challenges a trial court's February 27 discharge of Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the alleged scam involving favoritism to liquor licensees.
Know more about the excise policy probe
The now-scrapped 2021 Delhi excise policy aimed to privatize liquor sales for revenue growth but faced allegations of irregularities, kickbacks, and losses to the exchequer, prompting CBI and ED probes ordered by the Lieutenant Governor. A trial court discharged the accused, criticising certain CBI findings, but Justice Sharma on March 9 issued notices to all 23 respondents, stayed departmental action against the CBI investigator, flagged prima facie errors in the trial court's observations and deferred related PMLA proceedings- moves that fueled AAP's bias claims.
Arvind Kejriwal's apprehension and HC CJ's rationale
In his plea, Arvind Kejriwal argued Justice Sharma's prior orders, granted without hearing the accused, breached neutrality, especially since some related HC rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court. CJ Upadhyaya countered, "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." AAP confirmed receiving the HC communication, with Kejriwal also contesting SK Sharma's March 9 stay on trial court remarks without his side being heard.
Supreme Court plea and next steps
Filed under Article 32, the SC petition seeks urgent listing before a CJ-led bench, potentially tomorrow, to shift the case for 'manifestly impartial' hearing. The development heightens tensions ahead of Justice Sharma's hearing, underscoring AAP's strategy to question judicial assignments amid the high-profile corruption battle.