The ex-CM of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, has requested the transfer of the excise policy case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to that of the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. He, in a written representation, stated that he is ‘seriously apprehensive’ that the matter may not have a fair hearing if continued with the said bench.
Background of the excise policy
Kejriwal had been arrested in connection with the excise policy charges around June 2024 and faced the chargesheet a month after the arrest. After several months of court proceedings, a special trial court pronounced a detailed judgment on February 27, 2026, discharging Kejriwal, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Singh, and 21 others.
The Central Bureau of Investigation filed a revision to the discharge. The Bureau requested the trial court reconsider its judgment, causing the case to be instituted in the Delhi High Court for initial actions in March 2026.
Logic backing the motion for transfer
Mr. Kejriwal asserted that the CBI appeal mentioned no accused-specific defects or any particular findings, or evidentiary errors necessitating revision. He observed that the petition was a broad challenge rather than an attack on discrete components of the trial record.
The representation claimed that the high court’s ex parte interim view during its first hearing considerably bolstered bias. Kejriwal thus prayed for transfer of the revision petition to another Bench to salvage the cause of faith and belief in fair justice.
The approach and first interim decisions of the High Court
A Division Bench headed by Justice Swatanter Kumar stayed the order dated May 3 of the Special CBI Judge and directed the parties to maintain status quo in the matter.
The CBI’s Special Cell attention who is under a cloud visited AOL at a course, leaked all the conversation to India Today, as te first half of the sordid expose or his appearing to provide lterativec in an hour-long show treadmill that sometimes transforms these news networks into, inexplicably Lanka-interrogator was then nothing that was mentioned other than a statement.
The petitioner’s contention is that the granting of wider wide interim relief by the High Court at the threshold before hearing the acquitting accused is tainted by apparent bias well-settled to apply. It was also noted that the Enforcement Directorate was not a party to the revision, but the impact of the interim relief was on the instructions given for the Investigating Officer.
Counsel for the petitioners underlined the point of tardiness- ordering an interim stay over discharge or acquittal order was rare and must be transparently justified. The lawyer sought the penetration of the chief justice to ensure complete judicial detachment in the very conduct of the hearing.
Implications for the trial and political context
Transfer might change the schedule and tenor of the hearings hence a transfer by the chief justice would serve to calm down the anxiety of the parties and the public that procedural justice would be done.
The issue at hand in the policy excise case has enormous political and legal stakes. Principle and trial will be vital among others beyond the immediate hosts. They also relate to the personal meaningfulness of accountability and just another day in court – unbaked in the minds for posterity.
Pros and Cons
On receipt of the petition, the chief justice will peruse and take a decision concerning the question of transfer in the interest of justice. Should they choose not to affect transfer, the high court will go into CBL revision, including in limine the legality of the trial court’s order of discharge.
More than sufficient substance for either option shall include close scrutiny on all counts in the papers and the parameters for revisional jurisdiction. Concerning the issues of between an opportunity for temporary relief and apparent prejudice for illegal bias, how such high-profile matters will be shandled in the foreseeing time is how to mark out this case.
