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 has issued an interim order protecting the personality and publicity rights of Gautam Gambhir, head coach of the Indian men’s cricket team. The court restrained entities from using his name, image, or likeness for commercial purposes without his consent, citing a sharp rise in AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorised merchandise.

A bench of Justice Jyoti Singh, in an order passed on March 25 and made public on Saturday, observed that Gambhir is among India’s most decorated cricketers. The court noted that unauthorised content and merchandise deriving commercial value from his goodwill and reputation amount to a violation of his personality rights.

Court Recognises Gambhir’s Stature in Indian Cricket

Justice Singh highlighted Gambhir’s distinguished cricketing career, noting that he has represented India in 242 international matches across Tests, ODIs, and T20Is. The court specifically mentioned his match-winning innings in the 2007 ICC World Twenty20 Final and the 2011 ICC Cricket World Cup Final, describing them as defining moments in Indian cricket history.

Following his retirement, the court observed, Gambhir transitioned into mentorship and coaching roles before being appointed head coach of the Indian men’s team in July 2024. “Under his stewardship, India won the ICC Champions Trophy, 2025, Asia Cup, 2025, and ICC Men’s T20 World Cup, 2026,” the order stated, underscoring his continued relevance in the public eye.

Deepfakes and Unauthorised Merchandise Prompt Legal Action

Gambhir had approached the court seeking protection, citing a coordinated campaign of digital impersonation. According to his petition, there has been a sharp rise in fabricated digital content relating to him across platforms such as Instagram, X, YouTube, and Facebook since 2025.

The court was informed that multiple accounts have used AI tools, including face-swapping and voice-cloning technologies, to create realistic videos falsely portraying Gambhir as making statements he never made. One fabricated “resignation announcement” reportedly garnered over 2.9 million views, causing significant reputational concern.

Additionally, the petition stated that e-commerce platforms were facilitating the sale of posters, merchandise, and other products bearing Gambhir’s name and likeness without authorisation, commercially exploiting his persona.

Court Orders Takedown, Restrains Future Use

Justice Singh directed the concerned entities to take down the infringing content within 36 hours. The interim order restrains any person or entity from using Gambhir’s name, image, voice, or other attributes of his personality for commercial purposes without his explicit consent.

Legal experts note that the ruling reinforces the growing recognition of personality rights as a distinct legal protectable interest in India, particularly in the context of emerging AI technologies. The court’s observation on the coordinated nature of the impersonation campaign also highlights the increasing judicial awareness of digital manipulation risks faced by public figures.

Broader Implications for Public Figures

The order comes amid growing concerns over AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorised commercial use of celebrity personas. Legal observers say the judgment sets a precedent for other public figures seeking recourse against digital impersonation and brand misappropriation.

While the interim order provides immediate relief to Gambhir, the matter remains pending further adjudication. The case also underscores the challenges faced by celebrities and public personalities in protecting their digital identity in an era of rapidly advancing generative AI tools.

What’s Next

The court has listed the matter for further hearing at a later date. Meanwhile, social media platforms and e-commerce websites are expected to comply with the takedown directive. The order is being seen as a significant step in balancing free expression with the protection of individual personality rights in the digital age.

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.

Bollywood actress Celina Jaitly has received significant relief in her long-running legal struggle for her brother, Retired Major Vikrant Jaitly, who has been in UAE custody since September 2024. In a key development, the Delhi High Court has directed the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to facilitate legal assistance and ensure the safety of the former Indian Army officer.

The order comes after nearly 16 months of detention, during which Celina repeatedly raised concerns about lack of communication and legal access for her brother. The latest court intervention marks a turning point in the Celina Jaitly brother UAE custody case, which has drawn attention to the challenges faced by Indian citizens detained abroad.

Delhi High Court Steps In for Legal and Diplomatic Support

During a hearing held on Tuesday, the Delhi High Court instructed the Ministry of External Affairs to urgently coordinate legal support for Major Vikrant Jaitly and ensure his well-being while in UAE custody. The court emphasised the need for structured diplomatic and legal intervention, especially given the prolonged detention.

Celina Jaitly confirmed the development through a post on her official social media account, calling it a “big step to protect the rights of a soldier.” She shared that, after months of effort, legal arrangements for her brother have finally been put in place.

UAE Law Firm Appointed to Handle the Case

Following the court’s directive, a prominent UAE-based legal firm, Khalid Almarri & Partners Advocates, has been engaged to represent Major Vikrant Jaitly. Notably, the firm has agreed to handle the case pro bono, working to protect his rights under international law.

Legal experts say this move is crucial, as cases involving national security laws in foreign jurisdictions often require local legal expertise and diplomatic coordination.

Celina Jaitly Thanks MEA for Support

Expressing gratitude, Celina Jaitly publicly thanked the Ministry of External Affairs for its cooperation. She stated that she is confident her brother will return home safely, highlighting his years of service to the nation.

Her statements have resonated widely, sparking conversations around the legal protections available to Indian citizens detained overseas.

Background: 16 Months of Detention in UAE

Major Vikrant Jaitly retired from the Indian Army and had been living in Dubai since 2016. In September 2024, he was taken into custody by UAE security agencies in connection with a national security-related case. Since then, his family claims there has been little to no direct communication.

Unable to intervene legally from India, Celina eventually approached the Delhi High Court, seeking MEA assistance after exhausting all other options.

Why This Case Matters Now

The Celina Jaitly brother UAE custody case highlights the importance of diplomatic channels, legal access, and consular support for Indians abroad. As global mobility increases, such cases underline the role of the government in safeguarding citizens’ rights beyond national borders.

With legal help now in place, the coming weeks are expected to be critical in determining the next steps in the case.

In a case that underscores the perilous position of civilians caught in geopolitical conflicts, the fate of Sahil Mahmad Husen Majothi, a 22-year-old Indian student from Gujarat, remains uncertain. Detained by Ukrainian forces after being allegedly coerced into fighting for Russia, Majothi's safe return to India now hinges on urgent diplomatic efforts. With talks of new prisoner exchanges between Russia and Ukraine emerging, his legal team is raising an alarm, warning that his repatriation to Russia could be disastrous .

The Delhi High Court has intervened, directing the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to take "urgent steps" to bring him home . However, a critical diplomatic gap on the ground and the complex machinery of war-time prisoner swaps have left his family in agonizing suspense.

A Student's Descent into the War Zone

Sahil Majothi's ordeal began in early 2024 when he traveled to St. Petersburg on a student visa to pursue a course in Russian language and culture at ITMO University . To support himself, he worked part-time as a courier. His family claims that in April 2024, he was falsely implicated in a narcotics case, arrested, and later sentenced to seven years in a Russian prison .

Facing a lengthy prison term, Majothi says he was given a choice: sign a contract with the Russian military or remain incarcerated. He chose the former, calling it the "biggest mistake" of his life . After minimal training, he was deployed to the front lines in Ukraine in October 2025, where he surrendered to Ukrainian forces within days . He has since been held in a Ukrainian military facility.

Courts Direct, But Diplomacy Lags

With representations to the government yielding little result, Majothi's mother, a cancer patient, approached the Delhi High Court. In a significant order, Justice Sachin Datta observed that the student appeared to have been compelled to join the Russian Army under duress and directed the Centre to "take all steps to bring him back" .

The court mandated:

   Appointing a liaison officer to coordinate with Ukrainian authorities.

   Securing consular access to Majothi.

   Filing a status report on the actions taken .

Despite this clear judicial directive, progress has been slow. Advocate Deepa Joseph, who met Majothi in Ukraine in early January, reported a lack of affirmative response from the MEA and highlighted slow coordination, stating the Indian ambassador was unavailable during her visit .

The Looming Threat of a Prisoner Exchange

The most immediate danger to Majothi's safety is the potential for him to be included in a prisoner-of-war exchange between Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine's Ombudsman office has confirmed that talks for a new swap are underway .

Historic Precedent: The two nations have conducted multiple large-scale swaps, including one of 303 prisoners each in May 2025 .

Grave Risk: If Majothi is transferred to Russia as part of such an exchange, his lawyer warns that Russian authorities could be "very hostile" towards him for surrendering .

This creates a race against time for Indian diplomacy to secure his direct repatriation to India before he is swept into the broader exchange mechanism.

A Warning to Others and a Test for Indian Diplomacy

From custody, Majothi has sent video messages pleading for help from Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar . He also issued a public warning: "Those coming to Russia for higher studies or work should be very careful. There are many scammers here" .

His case is not isolated. The Indian government has previously called for the release of other nationals reportedly serving with the Russian military . This situation tests India's diplomatic resolve and its ability to protect citizens abroad in complex conflict zones where traditional consular access is constrained.

The coming weeks are critical. The Delhi High Court continues to monitor the government's actions, and the window to extract Majothi from the prisoner-exchange pipeline is narrowing. His safe return will require not just diplomatic requests, but decisive and creative statecraft to navigate a brutal war and bring one young student home.