Delhi High Court Postpones Verdict on Arvind Kejriwal's Recusal Plea in Liquor Policy Case Delhi High Court Judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma postponed her verdict on pleas by Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking her recusal in the liquor policy case. Originally scheduled for 2:30 pm, the court delayed its decision to 4:30 pm after accepting Kejriwal’s submission as a written filing. Justice Sharma stated that the court would not alter its procedural rules for any litigant, emphasizing that the recusal matter would be treated as written submissions rather than a formal rejoinder. Kejriwal, appearing in person without legal representation, argued that the registry’s refusal to accept his rejoinder was a “miscarriage of justice.” Justice Sharma acknowledged the court’s earlier leniency in allowing him to file an additional affidavit after the recusal matter had been reserved for orders. She clarified that under registry rules, parties appearing in person must seek permission to file documents, and since the case was not “extraordinary,” the standard procedure was followed. The judge also noted that there is no legal concept of a “rejoinder” to written submissions, and she would ensure Kejriwal’s concerns were addressed through the written record. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, opposed Kejriwal’s request, asserting that no court in India accepts post-reservation filings. He reiterated that the court should apply standard procedures to all litigants and warned against setting a precedent for unfounded recusal claims. Kejriwal, however, accused Justice Sharma of bias, alleging a “direct conflict of interest” due to her children being empanelled central government lawyers who receive work through the solicitor general.#manish_sisodia #cbi #delhi_high_court #arvind_kejriwal #justice_swarana_kanta_sharma
Delhi High Court Warns Rajpal Yadav In Rs 9-Crore Cheque Bounce Case: "Never Think Judge Is Weak" The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its judgment in a cheque bounce case filed by M/s Murli Projects Private Limited against actor Rajpal Yadav. Presiding over the matter, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expressed clear displeasure at what she described as Yadav's shifting stands on repayment. The court cautioned that Yadav should not assume the judge is weak if the judge is nice to him, highlighting frustration over inconsistencies between Yadav's submissions and his legal team's arguments. The case stems from a May 2024 sessions court order that convicted Yadav in a cheque bounce matter and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment. The Delhi High Court later suspended the sentence after his counsel assured that the dispute would be settled, even referring the matter to mediation. However, the court observed that despite repeated assurances and adjournments, Yadav failed to honour his commitments. Yadav had previously assured the court that he would deposit Rs 2.5 crore in instalments but did not fulfill these promises. In February 2026, the High Court directed him to surrender for non-compliance, and his plea seeking more time was rejected. He surrendered on February 5 and remained in custody until he secured an interim suspension of his sentence after depositing Rs 1.5 crore. During the latest hearing, counsel for the complainant, advocate Avneet Singh Sikka, argued that Yadav could not evade liability merely because he had served his sentence. He emphasized that completion of punishment does not extinguish financial liability, pointing out that Rs 7.75 crore still remained unpaid, although approximately Rs 2 crore had been paid earlier before the trial court.#delhi_high_court #rajpal_yadav #justice_swarana_kanta_sharma #murli_projects_private_limited #avneet_singh_sikka
Arvind Kejriwal moves Supreme Court to transfer excise policy case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to reject his request to transfer the excise policy case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another judge. The Delhi High Court Chief Justice, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, denied Kejriwal’s plea on March 13, citing administrative reasons. The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks to address concerns about potential bias in the handling of the case. Kejriwal’s legal team argued that Justice Sharma’s recent order, issued on March 9, lacked clarity and raised questions about impartiality. The High Court had stayed the trial court’s direction to investigate a CBI officer involved in the excise policy case and directed the trial court to defer proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Justice Sharma also criticized the trial court’s observations, stating some were erroneous. In his petition, Kejriwal expressed apprehension that Justice Sharma’s involvement could compromise the case’s fairness. He highlighted that the High Court’s order did not provide reasons for the ex parte restraint imposed, which he argued was an extraordinary measure requiring clear grounds of illegality or perversity. Kejriwal also noted that the High Court’s directive to defer PMLA proceedings, despite the Enforcement Directorate (ED) not being a party to the case, further raised concerns about judicial neutrality. The trial court had earlier discharged Kejriwal and 22 others in the excise policy case, a decision challenged by the CBI.#delhi_high_court #arvind_kejriwal #justice_swarana_kanta_sharma #devendra_kumar_upadhyaya #enforcement_directorate
Delhi High Court to Hear CBI's Challenge Against Discharge of Liquor Policy Case Accused The Delhi High Court is set to address a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the trial court's decision to discharge all accused in the liquor policy case. The case involves prominent AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, among others. A bench led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma will hear the matter today. Last week, Justice Sharma had raised concerns about the trial court's order, noting that some of its observations appeared prima facie erroneous. This prompted further legal action, as Kejriwal sought to transfer the case to another bench, citing apprehensions of bias against Justice Sharma. However, the High Court rejected his request, leading Kejriwal to file a writ petition in the Supreme Court to transfer the CBI's petition from Justice Sharma's bench. The CBI's plea argues that the trial court's discharge order is flawed and seeks to overturn it. The case has drawn significant attention due to the high-profile nature of the accused and the potential implications for the legal proceedings. The court's decision on this matter could set a precedent for similar cases involving political figures and public officials. Live updates from the hearing will provide further insights into the court's reasoning and the potential outcomes. The case remains a focal point for legal and political observers, given its impact on the ongoing investigations and the broader implications for judicial independence and accountability.#manish_sisodia #central_bureau_of_investigation #delhi_high_court #arvind_kejriwal #justice_swarana_kanta_sharma
