The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to inform Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak about the transfer of the excise policy case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to Justice Manoj Jain..Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak were boycotting the proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who released the case after initiating contempt proceedings against them and several others. .When the case came up for hearing before Justice Manoj Jain today, he noted that several persons were not represented. The Court remarked that since the matter is already in the media, it assumes that people know that the matter has been transferred to the present Bench. Justice Jain added that once Kejriwal and others appear, he will know if they are satisfied with the allocation of the case to him. "We understand that the case has been received on transfer. The matter is already in the newspaper, so we assume that they are in knowledge that the matter is before this court now. We will not shy away from sending them a notice that the matter is now before this court, and if they want to appear they can. Once they appear, we do not know if they are okay with the present allocation or not. We will ask the prosecution to inform them about the allocation," the Court remarked. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the CBI and stated that he would take steps to serve Kejriwal and others.The Court has now listed the case for further proceedings on Monday. It added that once all the respondents are represented, it will draw up a schedule for the hearing of the matter. .The case has been assigned to Justice Jain after Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who was earlier hearing the matter, directed it to be transferred to another Bench in light of the contempt of court proceedings initiated by her against Kejriwal, Sisodia and other AAP leaders..The excise policy case arose in 2022, when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22 was manipulated to facilitate monopolisation and cartelisation of the liquor trade in Delhi.The probe agency said that AAP and its leaders received kickbacks from liquor manufacturers due to the manipulation of the policy. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) also later registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the matter.What followed was a series of arrests of opposition leaders, criticised by some quarters as being politically motivated.It was alleged that a criminal conspiracy was hatched by AAP leaders, including Sisodia, Kejriwal and other unidentified and unnamed private persons/entities at the stage of the policy’s formulation.The conspiracy, it was alleged, involved loopholes “intentionally” left or created in the policy. These loopholes were allegedly meant to favour some liquor licensees and conspirators post the tender process, it was claimed.A trial court on February 27 this year discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused from the case. .The CBI challenged the order and the same initially came up before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma..On March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice in the matter and stayed the trial court direction for department proceedings against the CBI officer who investigated the case. Justice Sharma also gave a prima facie finding that some of the observations made by the trial court in its order were erroneous. She further directed the trial court to defer the PMLA proceedings, which are based on the CBI's case.Kejriwal and other accused -Sisodia, Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai and Chanpreet Singh Rayat - subsequently filed applications for Justice Sharma's recusal.They alleged conflict of interest in Justice Sharma hearing the matter. Kejriwal argued that Justice Sharma should not hear the case because her son and daughter are panel counsel for the Central government, giving rise to a conflict of interest on the judge's part.He further said that Justice Sharma had attended the conferences organised by the ABAP, an organisation ideologically opposed to AAP, and that her several previous orders have been set aside by the Supreme Court.He also claimed that in the recusal plea, the apprehension of bias on the part of litigant is the deciding factor. In this regard, he highlighted the recusal application filed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) a few years ago in a money laundering case involving his AAP colleague Satyendar Jain. In that case, the ED's request for recusal was allowed on the ground that the ED had an apprehension of bias; and not that the judge was not upright, Kejriwal said..The same was rejected by Justice Sharma on April 20. She decided that she would continue hearing the matter. Subsequently, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak decided to boycott the proceedings before Justice Sharma..Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recuses from Excise Policy case but initiates contempt case against Arvind Kejriwal, others.However, on May 14, Justice Sharma decided to draw contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, Sisodia and other AAP leaders including Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra and Saurabh Bharadwaj for making defamatory and vilifying allegations against her on social media in connection with the excise policy case.In light of the contempt case, she directed that the excise policy case be transferred to some other judge of the High Court.
