Delhi Excise Policy Case Reassigned to Justice Manoj Jain After Contempt Proceedings Against AAP Leaders Arvind Kejriwal

May 18, 2026 : The Delhi excise policy case involving several senior leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), including former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, will now be heard by Justice Manoj Jain of the Delhi High Court. The reassignment comes after Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed that the matter be placed before another Bench following the initiation of contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, Sisodia and other AAP leaders.

The case stems from a 2022 investigation launched by the Central Bureau of Investigation into alleged irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. The agency registered an FIR claiming that the policy framework had been manipulated to facilitate monopolisation and cartelisation in the liquor trade in the national capital. According to the allegations, changes in the policy benefited certain liquor manufacturers and distributors, while kickbacks were allegedly routed to AAP leaders and the party.

The Enforcement Directorate later initiated a parallel money laundering investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The probe resulted in the arrest of several opposition leaders, prompting allegations from political opponents that the investigation was politically motivated.

Investigators have alleged that a criminal conspiracy involving Kejriwal, Sisodia and several unidentified individuals and entities was hatched during the formulation of the excise policy. The agencies claim that loopholes were deliberately inserted into the policy to favour select liquor licence holders after the tender process.

On February 27, a trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused in the matter. Challenging that order, the CBI approached the Delhi High Court, where the case was initially listed before Justice Sharma.

During the proceedings on March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice on the CBI’s plea and stayed the trial court’s order directing departmental proceedings against the investigating CBI officer. She also made prima facie observations that certain findings recorded by the trial court appeared erroneous. In addition, the judge directed the trial court to defer proceedings in the connected PMLA case, which arose from the CBI investigation.

Following these developments, Kejriwal and several co-accused, including Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai and Chanpreet Singh Rayat, sought Justice Sharma’s recusal from the case. The applicants alleged a conflict of interest, claiming that the judge’s son and daughter were panel counsel for the Central government.

Kejriwal also argued that Justice Sharma had attended conferences organised by the ABAP, which he claimed was ideologically opposed to AAP. He further contended that some of her earlier rulings had been set aside by the Supreme Court. Referring to principles governing judicial recusal, Kejriwal argued that a litigant’s perception of bias was a relevant consideration. He cited an earlier case involving AAP leader Satyendar Jain, where a plea by the ED seeking recusal of a judge had reportedly been accepted on grounds of apprehension of bias.

Justice Sharma, however, rejected the recusal applications on April 20 and decided to continue hearing the matter. Subsequently, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak announced that they would boycott proceedings before her Bench.