The Breakdown of Judicial Trust: Why Arvind Kejriwal is Accusing a Delhi High Court Judge of Bias

The dramatic collapse of the Delhi excise policy case at the trial court level has rapidly escalated into a full-blown judicial showdown. On Sunday, AAP National Convener Arvind Kejriwal officially moved the Supreme Court, seeking an immediate transfer of the CBI's appeal to a different Delhi High Court bench. By explicitly alleging a "grave and reasonable apprehension" of bias against sitting Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Kejriwal has ignited a massive legal and political firestorm just months ahead of critical electoral battles.

This extraordinary maneuver—petitioning the apex court to intervene directly in the roster allocation of a High Court—highlights the total breakdown of trust between the embattled political party and the appellate judiciary handling its highest-stakes corruption cases.

How We Got Here

• The Trigger: On February 27, 2026, a Rouse Avenue trial court delivered a spectacular 601-page order discharging Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and 21 others. The trial court brutally slammed the CBI for a flawed investigation and ordered a departmental probe against the Investigating Officer (IO).
• The Background: Humiliated by the discharge, the CBI challenged the ruling in the Delhi High Court on March 9. On the very first day of hearings, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stayed the trial court's disciplinary action against the IO ex-parte, observing that the trial court's findings were "prima facie erroneous."
• The Escalation: Believing the bench was predisposed against them, Kejriwal wrote to Delhi HC Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya between March 11 and 13 requesting an administrative change of bench. The Chief Justice rejected the plea on March 13, stating the case was assigned per the standard roster and recusal was entirely up to the judge herself.
• The Stakes: Following the rejection, Kejriwal filed an Article 32 writ petition and a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court over the March 15-16 weekend. Concurrently, on March 16, the Delhi High Court granted Kejriwal's defense team time until April 6 to formally reply to the CBI's revision plea, creating a tense ticking clock for the apex court to intervene.

The Key Players

Arvind Kejriwal, National Convener, AAP Kejriwal has taken the rare step of directly petitioning the Supreme Court against a specific judge. His legal team argues that Justice Sharma's immediate ex-parte stay—coupled with her historical record of denying bail to AAP leaders in this exact case (rulings subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court)—creates an environment where a fair hearing is impossible. His petition explicitly cites a "grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension that the matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality."

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court Justice Sharma is the presiding judge over the CBI's appeal. Her rapid March 9 interim order triggered the current crisis. By noting that the trial court's remarks were "prima facie foundationally misconceived, especially when made at the stage of charge itself," she halted the strictures against the CBI and effectively paused connected PMLA proceedings, infuriating the defense.

Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India Representing the CBI, the Solicitor General fiercely opposed the AAP's request for an adjournment in the High Court on March 16. He accused Kejriwal's legal team of deploying blatant "judge-shopping" tactics, stating: "There has been a pattern. Make allegations and run away. Such litigants can't be encouraged... career (has been made) out of allegations."

The BIGSTORY Reframe — The Breakdown of Judicial Roster Trust

Mainstream media framing has largely reduced this event to a standard procedural delay, focusing on the sharp courtroom exchanges between SG Tushar Mehta and the defense counsel. However, ignoring the underlying implications of Kejriwal's petition misses the systemic crisis it represents: the profound breakdown of judicial roster trust.

When a high-profile former Chief Minister officially accuses a sitting High Court judge of "predisposition"—and points out that the Supreme Court has had to repeatedly overturn her previous rulings in this specific controversy—it is a direct attack on the core credibility of the judicial assignment system. The AAP is essentially arguing that the CBI is relying on a "friendly" bench to synthetically resurrect a politically motivated case that was utterly destroyed by a trial court's exhaustive 601-page discharge order.

This presents the Supreme Court with an agonizing constitutional dilemma. If they refuse to transfer the case, the AAP will publicly frame any subsequent adverse ruling by the High Court as premeditated, institutional bias. However, if the Supreme Court does transfer the case, it tacitly validates the AAP's explosive allegations against Justice Sharma, potentially emboldening any powerful litigant to demand a bench change the moment they face an unfavorable interim order.

What This Means for India

• Judicial Optics on Trial: This is a critical test of how the Supreme Court manages the perception of fairness. The apex court must swiftly list and definitively rule on the Article 32 writ petition before April 6 to prevent the High Court proceedings from being paralyzed by a cloud of suspicion.
• Political Framing: For the AAP, the petition itself acts as a political shield. Regardless of the outcome, they have laid the groundwork to tell voters that the CBI's appeal is not a legitimate legal process, but a targeted judicial harassment campaign.
• Precedent for High-Profile Cases: How Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud handles this "bench-hunting" allegation will set a strict precedent for future political corruption trials across the country, delineating exactly when an apprehension of bias justifies disrupting the Chief Justice of a High Court's master roster.

If a 600-page discharge order by a trial judge can be stayed on day one without hearing the defense, does the presumption of innocence still exist in India's appellate courts?

Sources

News & Wire Coverage:

• The Indian Express: Excise policy case: Arvind Kejriwal moves SC as Delhi HC refuses to transfer CBI appeal to another bench
• LiveLaw: Arvind Kejriwal Moves Supreme Court Seeking To Transfer CBI Plea Against Liquor Policy Discharge From Justice SK Sharma's Bench
• The Times of India: Delhi HC seeks replies from 23 accused in liquor policy case; says trial court's observations while discharging Arvind Kejriwal prima facie erroneous
• The Hindu: Excise case: HC grants time to Kejriwal, Sisodia to respond to CBI's plea against discharge; next hearing on April 6

Official Statements & Data:

• Court Record: Delhi High Court interim stay order issued by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma — March 9, 2026
• Court Record: Supreme Court Article 32 Writ Petition and SLP filed by Arvind Kejriwal's legal counsel — March 15, 2026
• Court Record: Rouse Avenue Trial Court discharge order clearing 23 accused — February 27, 2026