Kejriwal Argues Recusal Plea in Delhi HC in Excise Policy Case AAP chief appears in person before Justice Sharma's bench, demands judge step aside from liquor scam hearing

Kejriwal Reaches High Court

AAP national convenor and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal arrived at the Delhi High Court on Monday morning, accompanied by his wife Sunita Kejriwal, to personally argue a recusal application against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case. Kejriwal filed an application calling for the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, requesting her not to hear the matter.

The development marks a rare instance of a former chief minister choosing to argue his own case in court.

What the Recusal Plea Says

The application has been filed by Kejriwal in person, and he argued the same himself before Justice Sharma. The petition contended that the refusal to transfer the case gives rise to a "grave, bona fide and reasonable apprehension" regarding the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings.

Kejriwal claimed that his apprehension was based on Justice Sharma's past conduct, saying that on the very first day of the CBI's revision petition against his discharge, she proceeded to record a prima facie view that the trial court's detailed order was "erroneous", even without hearing the other side.

The CBI's Position

Appearing for the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that all respondents had been duly served and argued that the case did not require detailed replies or rejoinders, stating that the High Court only needed to examine the trial court record and the discharge order.

The CBI has contended before the Delhi High Court that the discharge order was "perverse" and tantamount to an acquittal without trial, alleging that the policy was manipulated to benefit certain private liquor entities in exchange for alleged bribes.

Background of the Case

The trial court's order on February 27, 2026, discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and 21 others, concluding that the CBI's material did not disclose even a prima facie case. The court had also severely criticised the agency's investigation.

On March 9, 2026, Justice Sharma issued notice in the CBI's appeal and observed that the trial court's order was "prima facie erroneous." She also stayed the trial court's directive for departmental action against the investigating officer.

Failed Bid for Bench Transfer

Kejriwal and others had written to Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya requesting that the matter be transferred to another bench rather than the single bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma. The HC declined the request.

The Chief Justice clarified that the matter had been assigned as per the roster and observed that any recusal decision must be taken by the concerned judge herself.

Supreme Court Also Approached

Kejriwal, Sisodia, and other accused have also approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the proceedings from Justice Sharma's bench. The petitions, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, raise concerns over certain observations allegedly made by the judge during earlier hearings, particularly while dealing with bail applications in the same case.

Kejriwal also stated that Justice Sharma had earlier refused bail to many accused in the liquor policy case, and the Supreme Court had later granted them relief.

Political Stakes and What Comes Next

The case had become politically controversial, as Kejriwal was arrested and remanded to custody amid the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. He was later granted bail by the Supreme Court after 156 days of custody. AAP leader Manish Sisodia also spent 530 days in custody in the case.

The Delhi High Court has also issued notice to Kejriwal on a separate ED plea challenging his acquittal in cases concerning alleged non-compliance with PMLA summons, with further hearings scheduled for April 29. Whether Justice Sharma decides to recuse herself or continues to preside over the matter will now set the course for all pending hearings in the excise policy case, which remains one of the most closely watched legal battles in Indian politics today.

The Delhi High Court's Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya on Sunday, March 15 declined former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's request to transfer the CBI's appeal against his discharge in the Delhi excise policy case from the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another judge. In a written communication on the administrative side, the Chief Justice stated that the matter had been assigned to Justice Sharma in accordance with the existing court roster, and there was no ground to order a transfer.

Background: Trial Court Discharge and CBI's Challenge

On February 27, 2026, a Special CBI Court at Rouse Avenue discharged Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 other accused persons in the Delhi excise policy case — delivering a sharply worded indictment of the CBI's investigation, calling the agency's case wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny. The trial court found no overarching conspiracy and held that the excise policy had been formulated through a proper consultative and deliberative process.

Kejriwal, who had spent six months in jail in connection with the case, broke down after the verdict and described the corruption charges against him as the biggest political conspiracy in the history of independent India.

The CBI immediately challenged the discharge order before the Delhi High Court, filing a revision petition arguing that the trial court's order was perverse and effectively amounted to an acquittal before trial. The petition was assigned to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's bench.

March 9 Hearing Triggers Bias Concerns

At the first hearing of the CBI's revision petition on March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice to Kejriwal, Sisodia, and all 21 other accused. The bench stayed the trial court's directions that had called for departmental proceedings against the CBI's investigating officer. Justice Sharma also recorded a prima facie observation that certain findings in the trial court's discharge order appeared to be erroneous. Additionally, the bench directed the trial court hearing the connected Enforcement Directorate case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to defer its proceedings pending the High Court's decision on the CBI petition — even though the ED had not been made a party to the CBI revision petition and had not sought that relief.

These developments prompted Kejriwal to file a formal representation on March 11 before Chief Justice Upadhyaya seeking an administrative transfer of the case.

Kejriwal's Case for Transfer

In his representation, Kejriwal argued that he had a genuine, serious, and reasonable apprehension that the matter would not receive a hearing marked by complete impartiality and neutrality before Justice Sharma's bench. He pointed to multiple grounds for this concern.

Kejriwal argued that Justice Sharma had previously heard several matters arising from the same excise policy investigation and had recorded detailed prima facie observations on the same core facts and roles of the accused — observations that would now be central to the CBI's revision petition as well. He highlighted that multiple orders passed by Justice Sharma's bench in those earlier excise-related matters had subsequently been set aside by the Supreme Court, with the apex court granting relief to the accused persons in three matters and referring a fourth to a larger bench.

He also objected to the fact that during the March 9 hearing, the court had intervened on behalf of the ED — directing deferral of PMLA proceedings — without the ED being a party before it, without any such prayer from the CBI, and without hearing the discharged accused. He contended that granting only one week to respond in a case involving voluminous records spanning five charge sheets and 23 accused persons further reflected a predisposition toward speed that disadvantaged the respondents.

"Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done," his representation stated, adding that the concern raised was institutional rather than personal.

Chief Justice's Response

Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, in his written communication declining the request, stated clearly that the matter was assigned to Justice Sharma as per the current roster, that he found no reason to order a transfer on the administrative side, and that if any question of recusal arose, that decision rested solely with Justice Sharma herself as the judge hearing the matter.

"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, however, do not find any reason to transfer the petition by passing an order on the administrative side," the Chief Justice stated.

What Happens Next

The CBI's revision petition is listed for its next hearing before Justice Sharma's bench on March 16 — Monday. The court has already issued notice to all 23 discharged accused and indicated that certain observations of the trial court prima facie appeared erroneous and required consideration. The direction to defer proceedings in the connected ED-PMLA case also remains in force until the revision petition is decided.

Manish Sisodia, who spent two years in jail in connection with the case before being granted bail, had separately filed his own representation before the Chief Justice seeking the same transfer — a request that stands equally declined by Sunday's communication.