The Delhi High Court is set to hear two closely linked proceedings in the Delhi excise policy case this week — the transfer of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) challenge against the discharge of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders to a new Bench and the criminal contempt case initiated against Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and other party leaders over allegations against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
The excise policy case, in which Kejriwal, Sisodia and several others are accused, will now be heard by Justice Manoj Jain after Justice Sharma directed that the matter be transferred in view of the contempt proceedings initiated by her against the AAP leaders.
At the same time, a Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja is likely to hear on Tuesday the suo motu criminal contempt case against Kejriwal, Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and others over what the court termed “defamatory and vilifying allegations” against Justice Sharma.
The controversy traces back to the Delhi excise policy case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2022. The agency alleged that the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 was manipulated to favour select liquor traders and create monopolies in the liquor business. The Enforcement Directorate later filed a money laundering case based on the CBI FIR.
According to the agencies, loopholes were deliberately created in the policy to benefit certain licence holders after the tender process. The probe agencies alleged that kickbacks were received by AAP leaders and others through the policy. The arrests of several opposition leaders in the case triggered political controversy, with AAP repeatedly alleging political vendetta.
In a major relief to the accused, a trial court on February 27 discharged Kejriwal and 22 others in the case. The CBI challenged the order before the Delhi High Court, where the matter initially came up before Justice Sharma.
On March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice on the CBI plea and stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental proceedings against the investigating officer. The court also made prima facie observations that certain findings of the trial court appeared erroneous and directed deferment of related PMLA proceedings.
Soon after, Kejriwal, Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak and other accused sought Justice Sharma’s recusal, alleging conflict of interest and apprehension of bias.
Kejriwal argued that the judge’s children were panel counsel for the Central Government and also referred to her participation in events organised by Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, which he claimed was ideologically opposed to AAP.
Justice Sharma rejected the recusal pleas on April 20, observing that politicians could not be allowed to “sow seeds of mistrust” against the judiciary. Following the order, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak announced that they would boycott proceedings before her.
The court later took note of public statements, social media posts, letters and a video uploaded by Kejriwal explaining the boycott decision and initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the leaders.
Following the contempt action, Justice Sharma directed that the excise policy case be placed before another Bench, leading to its transfer to Justice Manoj Jain.
