Arvind Kejriwal Challenges CBI's Allegations in Delhi High Court

Arvind Kejriwal, the leader of the Aam Aadmi Party, appeared in the Delhi High Court to contest allegations made by the CBI regarding the alcohol policy. He argued that the court issued orders without the presence of defendants and emphasized his previous acquittal. Kejriwal raised concerns about judicial fairness and cited Supreme Court rulings to support his case. The trial court had previously acquitted him and others, criticizing the CBI's evidence as unreliable. This ongoing legal battle highlights significant issues surrounding judicial processes and the implications for Kejriwal's political career.

By Narendra Chaudhary Apr 13, 2026, 17:06 IST

Kejriwal Appears in Court Over CBI's Alcohol Policy Case

Arvind Kejriwal, the national convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), attended a hearing at the Delhi High Court regarding a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) related to the alcohol policy. He represented himself in court, where Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju were also present. Kejriwal began his address by expressing his respect for the judge and the court. The bench responded by stating that respect is mutual and urged him to focus on the case at hand. He then stated, 'I stand here as an accused, although the lower court has already acquitted me.' The bench instructed him to specifically present his arguments regarding the request to recuse the judge from the case.

Kejriwal Raises Objections to Orders Issued in Absence of Defendants

Kejriwal contended that on March 9, the High Court issued an order on the CBI's petition challenging the lower court's ruling without the presence of the defendants. He argued that the court ruled in favor of the CBI in the absence of any defendants and noted that the lower court's order appeared to have prima facie flaws. He pointed out that the case file consists of over 40,000 pages, and the court issued its order without reviewing the material. He emphasized that the law is straightforward, asserting that the issue is not whether the judge is biased, but whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias from the plaintiff's perspective. Kejriwal mentioned that he would present ten reasons to clarify why he believes such apprehension exists.

Kejriwal Cites Supreme Court Rulings

During the proceedings, Kejriwal referenced several Supreme Court decisions that define what constitutes reasonable apprehension. Previously, during an earlier hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had strongly opposed Kejriwal's petition, stating that the court is not a stage for theatrics and labeled the allegations as baseless and defamatory. He also noted that seven other acquitted defendants had filed similar petitions requesting the judge's recusal. Justice Sharma indicated that if more petitions are submitted, they could be considered together for a unified decision.

Trial Court Acquittal and Subsequent High Court Proceedings

On February 27, the trial court acquitted Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and 21 others, criticizing the CBI and declaring that the case was not worthy of judicial scrutiny, with the evidence deemed entirely unreliable. On March 9, Justice Sharma issued notices to all 23 defendants regarding the CBI's petition, noting that some comments made by the lower court during the charge determination appeared to be erroneous.