ExcisePolicyCase – Kejriwal Seeks Transfer of Delhi High Court Hearing
ExcisePolicyCase – A request has been submitted to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court seeking the reassignment of a criminal revision petition related to the excise policy investigation to a different judicial bench. The representation was filed by Arvind Kejriwal, who has been named as respondent number 18 in the matter.
Request Submitted to Chief Justice for Administrative Transfer
In a representation dated March 11, Kejriwal asked the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to consider transferring the case from the bench currently presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. The plea has been made under the authority of the Chief Justice as the Master of the Roster, who holds the administrative power to allocate and reassign cases among different benches of the court.
According to the submission, shifting the case to another bench would help maintain public trust in the fairness and impartiality of the judicial process.
Concerns Raised Over Initial Hearing Observations
The representation points to developments that occurred during the first hearing of the revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The petition challenges a trial court order that had earlier discharged several accused individuals in connection with the alleged excise policy case.
The filing states that during the initial hearing held on March 9, the court issued notices and also recorded a preliminary view suggesting that the trial court’s detailed discharge order appeared to be erroneous. The representation argues that these remarks were made before the discharged accused had an opportunity to present their arguments.
Interim Directions Linked to Enforcement Directorate Case
Another concern highlighted in the representation relates to interim directions that were passed during the same hearing. According to the plea, these directions had implications for proceedings conducted by the Enforcement Directorate.
The representation states that the Enforcement Directorate was not a party to the revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation. It further notes that the petition did not contain any specific request seeking relief related to the ED proceedings. Despite this, the court issued interim directions concerning the matter at the initial stage and without hearing the affected parties.
Impact on Related Investigations
The representation argues that the interim directions could have significant implications because the ED investigation is based on the predicate offence being examined by the CBI. As a result, linking the ED case to the outcome of the revision petition may influence proceedings connected to the broader investigation.
The filing suggests that such linkage, especially when it was not specifically requested in the petition and was issued before hearing all parties involved, has raised apprehensions about how the case might proceed in the future.
Objection Over Limited Time for Filing Replies
The representation also raises concerns regarding the timeline provided for responses. It states that the bench allowed only one week for the parties to file their replies to the revision petition.
According to the plea, the case involves extensive documentation, multiple charge sheets, and a large number of records. The representation argues that granting such a short time frame is unusual in matters of this scale and complexity.
Reference to Earlier Orders in Related Cases
The submission further mentions previous orders delivered by the same bench in cases linked to the excise policy investigation. These cases involved several individuals connected to the broader probe.
It states that in some of those earlier matters, the bench had made detailed prima facie observations on issues that are also central to the current revision petition. The representation suggests that these earlier observations contribute to the concerns raised in the request for transfer.
Emphasis on Institutional Confidence in Judiciary
In the representation, Kejriwal states that the request should be viewed as an institutional concern rather than a personal objection against any judge. The plea emphasizes that maintaining confidence in the judicial system is essential and that court proceedings should not only be fair but should also appear fair to all parties involved.
The submission therefore asks the Chief Justice to transfer Criminal Revision Petition No. 134 of 2026, titled CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Others, to another appropriate bench to ensure neutrality in the hearing and reinforce public trust in the judicial process.