Delhi Excise Policy Case: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Steps Away After Initiating Contempt Proceedings Against Kejriwal and Other AAP Leaders

Key Points:

On Thursday, May 14, 2026, a major legal and political controversy unfolded in the Delhi High Court when Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma decided to step away from hearing the CBI’s plea challenging the trial court order that discharged former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the Delhi excise policy case. The case involves Arvind Kejriwal and several other leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party over alleged irregularities in Delhi’s 2021–22 excise policy.

The judge clarified that her decision was not a recusal based on the demands made by AAP leaders, but because she had initiated criminal contempt proceedings against them, making it inappropriate for her to continue hearing the main matter. The case will now be transferred to another bench after directions from the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.

Justice Sharma made it clear that she still stood by her earlier order rejecting the recusal requests filed by Kejriwal and others. “I stand by my recusal order. I won't change a single word...I have stood up for this institution and for myself,” the judge said in court, as quoted by LiveLaw.

See Also: CAG Reports Tabled in Delhi Legislative Assembly Flag Major Irregularities in Delhi Government Hospitals, Excise Policy and CM Residence Renovation Work Under AAP Governance

She further explained, “Because, under the law, a judge who draws contempt proceedings cannot hear the main case... The recusal stands as it is, but I will send this case to another court. I will list this matter before the Chief Justice so that case can be heard by another judge.”

Apart from Kejriwal, contempt proceedings were also initiated against AAP leaders Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Durgesh Pathak, Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra and Devesh Vishwakarma.

The controversy began after Kejriwal and other AAP leaders sought Justice Sharma’s recusal from the liquor policy case. They alleged that the judge was biased and had a conflict of interest. They questioned her alleged participation in events linked to the RSS and also raised concerns that her children were empanelled as panel lawyers for the Central government and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

However, Justice Sharma had earlier rejected the recusal request, stating that there was no evidence of bias. Later, Kejriwal publicly shared videos and statements on social media claiming he had lost hope of getting justice from the judge. 

“My hope of receiving justice from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Ji has been shattered. Listening to the voice of my conscience, adhering to the principles of Gandhi Ji, and with the spirit of Satyagraha, I have decided that I will not appear before her in this case and will not present any arguments either,” Kejriwal wrote in a post on X.

See Also: Liquor policy case: ED moves Delhi HC challenging Kejriwal's acquittal in complaints over non-compliance with summons

During the hearing, Justice Sharma also accused the AAP leaders of running a “coordinated campaign” against her and the judiciary through social media posts, videos and public statements.

The case relates to the Delhi excise policy matter, where the Central Bureau of Investigation alleged that the Delhi government’s 2021–22 liquor policy was manipulated to favour certain liquor businesses and cartel networks. The agency claimed that kickbacks were paid to AAP leaders in exchange for policy benefits.

In February 2026, a trial court discharged all 23 accused in the case, including Kejriwal, Sisodia and others. The CBI later challenged that order in the Delhi High Court before Justice Sharma. The matter has remained politically sensitive since Kejriwal’s arrest during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. He was later granted bail by the Supreme Court after spending months in custody.

Former AAP member Munish Kumar Raizada also reacted to the development. “Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has taken a great step by initiating criminal proceedings for contempt of court against Kejriwal. At least someone is calling his bluff,” he wrote on X.

[VP]

Suggested Reading: