Delhi Excise Policy Case: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (April 29, 2026) adjourned the plea, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), challenging the discharge of former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and other accused in the Excise policy case till Monday (May 4, 2026). Delhi HC Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has called for the complete trial court record of the case.
The CBI, in February 2026, filed an appeal in the HC challenging the discharge of Mr. Kejriwal, former Deputy CM of Delhi Manish Sisodia and a few others in the Excise policy case.
The development comes after Justice Sharma, on Monday (April 20, 2026), rejected pleas by Mr. Kejriwal, seeking her recusal from the hearing, citing a “direct conflict of interest” as the judge’s children are empanelled Central government lawyers, who receive substantial work through the Solicitor General, who appeared for the CBI. On April 21, 2026, the Delhi HC observed that “a judge cannot recuse to satisfy a litigant’s unfounded suspicion of bias and based on manufactured allegations”.
Justice Sharma, however, rejected this argument, saying, “Even if relatives [of the judge] are empanelled on government panels, the litigant has to show relevance and impact on this case. No such nexus has been shown. Their empanelment or relationship has no connection with this dispute.”
The litigant cannot dictate how the children of the judge have to live their lives in the absence of any proof that the office of the judge was misused,” she had said.
On Monday (April 27, 2026), Mr. Kejriwal wrote to Justice Sharma saying that he will not appear before the court personally or through an advocate for the hearing. Following suit, Mr. Sisodia on Tuesday (April 28, 2026) and AAP leader Durgesh Pathak on Wednesday (April 29, 2026) also wrote to Justice Sharma that they will not participate in the proceedings personally or through a lawyer.
On February 27, a Delhi court discharged Mr. Kejriwal, Mr. Sisodia and 21 others in the Excise policy case, saying the CBI case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
