Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has written to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, seeking transfer of the excise policy case from the Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another Bench.

In a letter dated March 11, Kejriwal said he feared that if the matter continues before Justice Sharma, it may not receive a hearing marked by “impartiality and neutrality.”

The development comes after a trial court on February 27 discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused in the excise policy case. The order was challenged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the revision petition is currently being heard by Justice Sharma.

On March 9, the High Court issued notice on the CBI’s plea and stayed the trial court’s direction seeking departmental proceedings against the CBI officer who had investigated the case. Justice Sharma also observed prima facie that some of the findings recorded by the trial court in its discharge order appeared to be erroneous. In addition, the court directed the trial court to defer proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which stem from the CBI’s FIR.

In his letter, Kejriwal said the March 9 order did not explain what “perversity” in the trial court’s order justified granting an ex parte stay. He argued that interim interference with a discharge order is an exceptional step and is usually taken only in the rarest of cases where clear illegality or perversity is shown.

He also pointed out that the High Court directed the trial court to defer the PMLA proceedings even though the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was not a party to the proceedings before the court. According to him, granting such wide relief at the initial stage, without the issue being specifically pleaded and without hearing the discharged accused, strengthens his apprehension that the matter may not be approached with the required degree of judicial detachment.

Kejriwal further said that in revision petitions of such significance, courts usually grant at least four to five weeks to parties to file their replies. However, he claimed that the manner in which the case has been handled so far creates an impression of predisposition.

He also noted that Justice Sharma had earlier dealt with several excise policy matters and had expressed detailed prima facie views on the same set of facts. According to the letter, several of those judgments were later set aside by the Supreme Court of India — three were overturned and one was referred to a larger bench — with relief ultimately granted to the accused in those cases. This, Kejriwal said, further strengthens his apprehension regarding the handling of the present revision petition