Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia Challenge High Court's Decision in CBI Case
Supreme Court Appeal by AAP Leaders
In New Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, the leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), along with senior party member Manish Sisodia, has taken their case to the Supreme Court. This move follows the rejection of their request by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to transfer the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) plea regarding their discharge in the excise policy case to a different judge.
Sources indicate that Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya denied the request, stating that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was appropriately assigned to hear the CBI's petition based on the court's roster, and there was no justification for transferring the case.
The Chief Justice emphasized that any decision regarding recusal must come from the judge in question.
The CBI's petition is scheduled for a hearing before Justice Sharma on Monday.
The AAP has confirmed that both Kejriwal and Sisodia have formally challenged the High Court's decision in the Supreme Court.
On March 11, Kejriwal, Sisodia, and other defendants in the excise policy case submitted a request to Chief Justice Upadhyaya, seeking to have the CBI's plea against their discharge reassigned to a more impartial judge.
In their request, Kejriwal expressed serious concerns about the potential for bias in the proceedings.
Earlier, on February 27, the trial court had discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 21 others, criticizing the CBI for presenting a case that failed to withstand judicial scrutiny.
On March 9, Justice Sharma's bench temporarily halted the trial court's recommendation for departmental action against the CBI's investigating officer in the liquor policy case.
Justice Sharma issued notices to all 23 accused regarding the CBI's plea against their discharge, indicating that some of the trial court's observations appeared to be erroneous and warranted further examination.
Kejriwal's concerns were rooted in Justice Sharma's previous conduct, noting that she had formed a preliminary view against the trial court's detailed order without hearing the defense.
The representation argued that Justice Sharma did not provide specific reasons for her decision to stay the trial court's directives regarding the CBI official.
Kejriwal also raised objections to Justice Sharma's decision to postpone the trial proceedings in the related Enforcement Directorate (ED) case.
He pointed out that Justice Sharma had presided over multiple cases linked to the CBI FIR, including his own petition against arrest and bail requests from AAP leaders, yet had never granted relief to any of the accused.
The representation highlighted that several judgments made by Justice Sharma had been overturned by the Supreme Court, with one case referred to a larger bench.
Kejriwal asserted that the charges against him were politically motivated, emphasizing that his request for a transfer was based on a legitimate concern for fairness in the judicial process.