CBI Files Caveats in Supreme Court as AAP Leaders Seek Transfer in Excise Policy Case

India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed precautionary caveat applications before the Supreme Court, aiming to ensure the agency is heard before any orders are passed on Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and senior AAP leader Manish Sisodia. The politicians are challenging specific orders of the Delhi High Court related to the now-scrapped Excise Policy 2021-22 and are seeking the transfer of their case to a different bench.

Background and Context

The legal manoeuvres form the latest chapter in a high-profile investigation into alleged irregularities within the Delhi government’s excise policy for 2021-22. The policy, which was subsequently withdrawn, is the subject of intensive scrutiny by both the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Investigators allege that the formulation and implementation of the policy involved financial manipulations and corruption, leading to the charging of several prominent leaders from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).

Key Figures and Entities

The petitions before the Supreme Court name Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia as primary parties seeking relief. They are specifically requesting that proceedings be transferred away from the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma at the Delhi High Court. According to the petitioners, certain prima facie observations made by the judge during prior bail hearings—alongside a recent stay on trial court proceedings—have created a reasonable apprehension of bias. However, Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya has previously refused to transfer the case on administrative grounds, stating that roster assignments are standard and that the decision to recuse rests solely with the presiding judge.

Legal and Financial Mechanisms

The CBI’s decision to file caveats is a procedural mechanism intended to prevent the Supreme Court from granting any interim relief without hearing the agency’s arguments. This is typically done when a party anticipates that a matter may be listed for urgent hearing. The defense team for the politicians has filed their petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that the remarks made during the High Court hearings threaten the fairness of the trial. Currently, the SLPs are listed as "under defect" on the Supreme Court's website, indicating that procedural formalities must be completed before the case can be formally heard.

International Implications and Policy Response

This case highlights the ongoing friction between political leadership and federal investigative agencies in India. It draws attention to the broader challenges of maintaining judicial impartiality in highly polarized political environments. The outcome of these petitions could set significant precedents regarding how conflicts over judicial recusal are managed at the highest levels, influencing future protocols for handling high-stakes corruption trials involving elected officials.

Sources

This report draws on court filings and reporting by ANI, alongside public documentation regarding the Delhi High Court roster and the constitutional procedures of the Supreme Court of India.