New Delhi, March 15 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court has rejected a request made by the AAP National Convenor and former Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, to shift the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) revision petition regarding the Delhi excise policy case from the Bench presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

In a message directed to Kejriwal, the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court indicated that Chief Justice (CJ) Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, who oversees the roster, had found insufficient grounds to reassign the case.

“The petition is allocated to the esteemed judge according to the existing roster. Any decision regarding recusal must be made by the presiding judge. However, I see no reason to transfer the petition administratively,” the message reflected CJ Upadhyaya’s remarks.

In a letter dated March 11, Kejriwal voiced concerns that the case might not be addressed with the necessary impartiality and neutrality if it remained under Justice Sharma's jurisdiction.

This request was linked to the CBI’s criminal revision petition that challenges the Rouse Avenue Court's decision to exonerate all 23 individuals involved, including Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, in the corruption case tied to the now-defunct excise policy implemented by the AAP-led Delhi government.

Earlier this week, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, sitting alone, had notified Kejriwal, Sisodia, and other parties regarding the CBI’s motion contesting the trial court’s dismissal of charges against the accused.

During the proceedings, Justice Sharma also put a hold on the trial court’s order that mandated departmental action against a CBI officer who investigated the case, stating that the remarks made regarding the investigative agency and the officer would remain on hold.

In a separate matter, the same Bench addressed a plea from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking the removal of certain critical comments made by the trial court while discharging the accused in the excise policy case.

The ED argued that these remarks were “unrelated to the matter at hand” and were documented without the agency being present in the trial court at the time of the discharge order.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju contended that these observations were made without providing the ED an opportunity to present its case, potentially jeopardizing its ongoing investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The Delhi High Court indicated it would evaluate the ED’s concerns alongside the CBI’s revision petition, given that the entire ruling from the trial court was already under scrutiny.

On February 27, the Rouse Avenue Court issued an extensive judgment, spanning over 1,100 paragraphs, which discharged all accused, dismissing the prosecution’s claims of a widespread conspiracy and asserting that the excise policy emerged from a consultative and deliberative process following established protocols.

Meanwhile, both Kejriwal and Sisodia provided surety bonds of Rs 50,000 each before the Rouse Avenue Court following their discharge in the corruption case.

According to legal norms, an accused individual who is discharged or acquitted in a criminal proceeding must submit a surety bond to ensure their availability before the court in the event that the prosecution initiates an appeal against the ruling.