The Delhi excise policy case pending before the Delhi High Court, in which several Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders including former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia are accused, will now be heard by Justice Manoj Jain.
The matter was reassigned after Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who had earlier been hearing the case, directed that it be placed before another Bench following the initiation of contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, Sisodia and other AAP leaders.
The excise policy case dates back to 2022, when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a First Information Report (FIR) alleging irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. According to the agency, the policy was manipulated to enable monopolisation and cartelisation in the liquor trade in the national capital.
The CBI alleged that AAP leaders and the party received kickbacks from liquor manufacturers and distributors due to changes made in the policy framework. Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) also initiated proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The investigation led to the arrest of several opposition leaders, with critics alleging that the probe was politically motivated.
Investigators claimed that a criminal conspiracy involving Kejriwal, Sisodia and other unidentified individuals and entities was hatched during the formulation of the excise policy. According to the allegations, loopholes were deliberately created in the policy to favour certain liquor licence holders after the tender process.
On February 27 this year, a trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused in the case. The CBI challenged that 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’s plea and stayed the trial court’s direction ordering departmental proceedings against the investigating CBI officer. She also made a prima facie observation that certain findings recorded by the trial court appeared erroneous. Additionally, she directed the trial court to defer proceedings in the connected PMLA case, which was based on the CBI investigation.
Following these developments, Kejriwal and several co-accused, including Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai and Chanpreet Singh Rayat, moved applications seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal from the case.
The applicants alleged a conflict of interest, contending that Justice Sharma’s son and daughter were panel counsel for the Central government. Kejriwal also argued that the judge had attended conferences organised by the ABAP, which he claimed was ideologically opposed to AAP, and further pointed out that some of her earlier rulings had been set aside by the Supreme Court.
Kejriwal additionally argued that in recusal matters, the perception of bias held by a litigant was a relevant consideration. In support of this contention, he referred to an earlier case involving AAP leader Satyendar Jain, where the ED’s plea seeking recusal of a judge had been accepted based on apprehensions of bias.
Justice Sharma, however, rejected the recusal applications on April 20 and decided to continue hearing the matter. Thereafter, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak announced that they would boycott proceedings before her Bench.
The post Justice Manoj Jain to hear Delhi excise policy case after Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s recusal appeared first on India Legal.