New Delhi [India], March 11 : A representation has been moved before the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court seeking transfer of a criminal revision petition linked to the excise policy case from the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another appropriate bench. The representation has been filed by Arvind Kejriwal, who is arrayed as respondent number 18 in the case.
In the representation dated March 11, Kejriwal has urged the Chief Justice, in his capacity as the "Master of the Roster", to administratively transfer the matter in order to maintain public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of judicial proceedings.
The representation raises concerns about certain developments during the first hearing of the revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the discharge of accused persons in the alleged excise policy case. It states that at the very first hearing on March 9, the court issued notice and recorded a prima facie view that the trial court's detailed discharge order was "erroneous", even though the discharged accused had not yet been heard.
According to the representation, the court also granted interim directions affecting proceedings under the Enforcement Directorate, despite the agency not being a party to the revision petition. It states that the relief regarding the ED proceedings was not sought in the petition filed by the CBI and was granted ex parte at the initial stage.
The plea further contends that such directions had wide consequences because the ED case is based on the predicate offence investigated by the CBI. It argues that linking the ED proceedings to the outcome of the revision petition, without any prayer to that effect and without hearing the discharged accused, has strengthened apprehensions regarding the approach that may be adopted in the matter.
Another concern highlighted in the representation relates to the time granted for filing replies. It states that although the case involves voluminous records and multiple charge sheets, the court granted only one week for responses, which is claimed to be unusually short compared to the time typically provided in similar matters.
The representation also refers to previous orders passed by the same bench in cases arising out of the excise policy investigation, including matters involving several accused persons. It claims that in those cases the bench had recorded detailed prima facie observations on issues that are central to the present revision petition.
On this basis, Kejriwal has stated that a fair-minded litigant could reasonably apprehend that the matter may not receive a hearing with complete judicial detachment. The representation emphasises that the concern raised is institutional rather than personal, stressing that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
The plea therefore requests the Chief Justice to transfer Criminal Revision Petition No. 134 of 2026, titled CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Others, to another bench to ensure neutrality and preserve confidence in the judicial process.