Delhi High Court Issues Notice in Liquor Policy Case Involving Kejriwal

The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the CBI in response to a petition from Arvind Kejriwal, seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from his liquor policy case. The court proceedings have raised significant questions regarding the integrity of the judicial process, with Kejriwal intending to argue his case personally. The background of the case involves allegations of irregularities in the Delhi government's liquor policy, which has led to investigations by both the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate. As the legal battle unfolds, the implications for Kejriwal and his party remain critical.

By Narendra Chaudhary Apr 6, 2026, 18:58 IST

High Court Proceedings

On Monday, the Delhi High Court issued a notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding a petition filed by Arvind Kejriwal, the leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). He is requesting the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from overseeing the CBI's appeal against his discharge in the liquor policy case.

This petition was brought up while Justice Sharma was reviewing the CBI's challenge to a trial court's February 27 ruling that had cleared Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 others of charges.

During the court session, Kejriwal, who was accompanied by his spouse, expressed his intention to personally present his argument for recusal, as reported by a news outlet.

Justice Sharma remarked that a petitioner could only represent themselves after dismissing their legal counsel.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, mentioned that he had received seven requests for the judge's recusal, labeling the situation as “very serious.”

Mehta stated, “Some individuals in this country build careers on making serious allegations.” He emphasized the need to support the institution amidst these claims.

While Mehta indicated there was no objection to Kejriwal representing himself, he clarified that if Kejriwal chose to do so, his lawyer could not continue to act on his behalf.

The High Court then confirmed with Kejriwal whether he would argue his application, to which he affirmed.

Justice Sharma allowed Kejriwal to appear personally and scheduled the next hearing for April 13.

Background of the Case

The CBI has accused the Delhi government of irregularities related to its liquor excise policy, which has since been revoked. Following the CBI's allegations, the Enforcement Directorate initiated its own investigation into potential money laundering.

This policy was implemented in November 2021 and was withdrawn in July 2022 after the then-Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, Vinai Kumar Saxena, recommended an inquiry into the alleged misconduct.

According to the two central agencies, the AAP government altered the liquor policy by increasing the commission for wholesalers from 5% to 12%, which allegedly enabled the acceptance of bribes from wholesalers with significant market shares.

On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 others implicated by the CBI, ruling that there was no overarching conspiracy or criminal intent associated with the excise policy.

The trial court also criticized the CBI for implicating Kejriwal without substantial evidence, noting that the chargesheet contained numerous gaps lacking witness support.

However, on March 9, the High Court stayed the trial court's negative remarks regarding the CBI. Justice Sharma observed that the trial court's conclusions appeared to be flawed.

Kejriwal subsequently wrote to the chief justice of the High Court, requesting the case be reassigned to a different judge, but this request was denied. He argued that no specific reasons were provided for the trial court's comments.

Additionally, Kejriwal pointed out that the judge had previously denied bail to several accused individuals in the liquor policy case, who were later granted relief by the Supreme Court.

He sought the transfer of the case, citing a “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension that the matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality.”