NEW DELHI: Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener Arvind Kejriwal and senior leader Manish Sisodia on Sunday filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court’s rejection of his request to transfer the CBI’s appeal against his discharge in the liquor policy case from the bench of Justice Swarana Kant Sharma. They argued the matter may not receive a hearing marked by “impartiality and neutrality”.
Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya denied Kejriwal’s request to transfer the excise policy case from Justice Sharma to another bench. The Chief Justice told Kejriwal that the petition had been assigned to the judge as per the current roster.
While rejecting the AAP leader’s request, the Chief Justice said any call on recusal had to be taken by the judge. “I however, do not find any reason to transfer the petition by passing an order on the administrative side,” he said. Following this, he moved the apex court.
In the writ petition filed on Sunday, Kejriwal has challenged the Delhi High Court Registrar General’s order, which was issued on the basis of the Chief Justice’s instructions.
The former Delhi chief minister 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.
In his writ petition, he sought transfer on the ground of a “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension that the matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality.”
Kejriwal has also filed a separate Special Leave Petition challenging Justice Swarana Kant Sharma’s observations against the trial court’s order.
On February 27, the trial court discharged all 23 accused persons in the case, including political leaders Kejriwal, Sisodia and K Kavitha. While discharging them, the trial court had also severely criticised the CBI’s investigation in the case.
Kejriwal on Wednesday wrote to Chief Justice Upadhyaya urging the transfer of the excise case from Justice Sharma to another bench, saying “not even once that the concerned bench gave relief to any accused person.”
The letter claimed that Justice Sharma had already expressed detailed prima facie views on the case, which are now directly in issue in the CBI’s revision challenging the discharge order.
“The undersigned respectfully requests that this criminal revision be placed before a different bench to ensure that the matter is heard and decided with neutrality and to protect public confidence in the administration of justice,” the letter had said.
The Chief Justice, as ‘Master of the Roster’, is vested with the power to constitute benches and allocate matters.
The letter claimed that the approach earlier adopted by the judge in the case had already been found “legally vulnerable”. It added that the request was made “in the interest of justice and to maintain the confidence of litigants and the public in the fairness of the process”.
The letter claimed that Justice Sharma, “without disclosing any reasons”, at the very first short hearing on March 9, 2026, “not only issued notice but, ex parte and without hearing any of the discharged accused, proceeded to record a prima facie view that the trial court’s detailed order is ‘erroneous’.”