Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal wants the excise case to be transferred from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another judge.
According to Bar and Bench, Kejriwal had approached the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s decision rejecting his request to transfer the case to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
Read also | Kejriwal to Modi: Has Iran ensured safe passage of Indian ships through Hormuz?
Earlier in January, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was upheld by a Delhi court in two pleas filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking action against him for ignoring the ministry’s summons regarding an excise probe.
On February 27, the trial court acquitted Kejriwal and 22 other accused in the consumer policy case. The CBI has challenged the order and the same is currently being heard by Justice Sharma.
Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya recently rejected Arvind Kejriwal’s request to transfer the excise case from Justice Sharma, Bar and Bench reported.
Who is Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma?
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma is a Judge of the Delhi High Court.
Education of Justice Swarana Sharma: According to a profile shared by the Delhi High Court, Sharma completed his BA (Hons.) in English Literature from Delhi University.
She received her LL.B. in 1991 and completed her LL.M. in 2004. She also holds a diploma in marketing management, advertising and public relations.
Read also | Delhi Excise Policy case: HC issues notice on strike plea against ED
In 2025, after four years of extensive research, she received her doctorate for her doctoral thesis entitled “Achieving a Constitutional Vision of Justice through Judicial Education: A Comparative Study of Best Practices in the UK, USA, Singapore and Canada”.
Career of Justice Swarana Sharma: Sharma became a Magistrate at the age of 24 and a Sessions Judge when she was 35. On 28 March 2022, she was elevated as a permanent judge of the Delhi High Court.
Justice Sharma is a trained court mediator and has successfully settled many cases through mediation.
She has served as the chairperson of the committees set up to look into complaints of sexual harassment of women employees at Tis Hazari, Patiala House and Rohini courts at various points of time.
Read also | Delhi HC stays judgment against CBI in excise case
During her tenure at the District Courts of Delhi, she presided over various civil and criminal courts, including as a Special Judge (CBI), Chief Judge of the Family Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahila Court and Special Court (Sex Offenses Against Women).
She was appointed Chief District and Sessions Judge (North District) in November 2019 and took over as Chief District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (CBI) at the Rouse Avenue Court in March 2022.
Justice Sharma by: Justice Sharma has authored several books on public awareness and advocacy.
Her first book, “Don’t Break After Break-Up,” offers guidance to women who have decided to remain single or who have experienced difficult breakups. Her second book, “Beyond Baghban,” explores the emotional and financial challenges faced by senior citizens, her profile says.
Read also | Watch: Kejriwal breaks down, sobs after acquittal in Delhi excise policy case
Her third book, ‘Tumhari Sakhi’, seeks to raise awareness among women about their rights and the importance of speaking out against violence. She also ventured into fiction with her fourth book, “Love Full Circle.”
Her fifth book “Judicial Education – Achieving Constitutional Vision of Justice” aims to highlight the importance of judicial education in strengthening the justice delivery system and helping judges realize the constitutional vision of justice.
Why Kejriwal wants to remove Justice Swaran Kant Sharma from excise policy case?
In a letter written on March 11, Kejriwal expressed concern that if the matter remained with Justice Sharma, “the matter may not get a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality”.
On March 9, Justice Sharma adjourned the court proceedings for trial against the CBI officer investigating the case.
Justice Sharma also upheld the prima facie finding that some of the trial court’s statements in dismissing Kejriwal and 22 others were erroneous.
Read also | PM Modi ‘betrayed’ farmers by lifting import duty on US cotton: Kejriwal
In his letter to Chief Justice Upadhyaya Kejriwal, according to the Bar and Bench, he said the March 9 order did not disclose any reasons as to why “perversity” warranted ex parte restraint.
He submitted that the order acquires significance as it is held that interim interference with the order of dismissal is an extraordinary procedure to be exercised only in exceptional cases and on clear grounds of illegality and perversity.
Kejriwal reportedly added that in the same order, the high court had also directed the trial court to stay the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) proceedings even though the ED was not a party in the High Court.
Read also | ‘The debt almost broke me’: Manish Kejriwal on money, debt and private equity
“That the granting of such broad and consequential relief—without the same being sought, and in a proceeding where the ED is not a party—at the threshold stage and without hearing the acquitted accused materially strengthens the appellant’s reasonable apprehension that this review cannot be approached with the requisite degree of judicial separation, and that the matter need not be heard as required by manifestly impartial, impartial, principles of law. Bench.”
Kejriwal also said that in the normal course, in a review application of this magnitude, at least four to five weeks are given to the parties to file their reply, but the Court’s approach in this case “reflects the concern of predisposition”.
Kejriwal added that the same judge had earlier dealt with excise matters and “expressed detailed prima facie views on the same core of facts and roles”.
Read also | Delhi Excise Policy case: HC issues notice on strike plea against ED
“Importantly, several of these detailed judgments were subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court (three overturned, one involving a larger bench). In all the above matters – the Supreme Court granted relief to the accused. This further strengthens the complainant’s concern that the approach taken earlier in the same controversy has already been found to be legally vulnerable,” the letter states.
What has Kejriwal done now?
The Bar and Bench lawyer said the petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The article guarantees “The right to constitutional means”. It gives citizens the right to approach the Supreme Court directly to assert their fundamental rights.
The lawyer reportedly said that along with the Delhi High Court’s order refusing to change the judge, Kejriwal also challenged Justice Sharma’s March 9 order to stay the trial court’s proceedings to investigate the CBI official who was probing the excise policy case.
