Demand to transfer excise policy case to another bench, Arvind Kejriwal writes letter to Chief Justice of Delhi High Court
Taking an important legal step in the Delhi Excise Policy case, Arvind Kejriwal has written a letter to Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay with a formal request to transfer the case to some other bench. In this letter written on Wednesday, Kejriwal expressed apprehension that the proceedings going on before the bench of Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma, which is currently hearing the case, may lack the necessary “impartiality and neutrality”. The former Chief Minister has requested in his letter that the hearing of this case be transferred to some other bench to ensure transparency and fairness of the judicial process.
In fact, on February 27, Rouse Avenue Court had discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused in the excise policy case. After this, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenged this decision of the trial court in the High Court. During the hearing of the case on March 9, Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma issued notice on the CBI’s petition and put an interim stay on the trial court’s direction, which called for departmental action against the investigating officer.
Kejriwal’s legal team’s argument
Kejriwal’s legal team argues that the March 9 order did not mention such “extraordinary reasons”, which generally apply only in the “rarest of rare circumstances” involving clear illegality. Lawyers say that on this basis, a demand has been made to hand over the hearing of the case to some other bench. Now this request is under consideration before the Chief Justice and only after his decision it will be decided in which bench the further hearing of the excise policy case will be held.
Judicial bias?
Apart from this, in his representation, Kejriwal has also expressed serious concern over the procedural scope of the recent actions of the High Court. He said that Justice Sharma directed the trial court to adjourn the proceedings related to PMLA, whereas the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was not a party to this particular revision petition. The petition also states that granting such huge relief at the initial stage without hearing the side of the acquitted accused further strengthens the suspicion of judicial bias.
Follow the LALLURAM.COM MP channel on WhatsApp
Comments are closed.