The bitter, multi-year political war over the scrapped 2021-22 Delhi Excise Policy entered unprecedented legal territory on Monday. Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal appeared in person at the Delhi High Court. He did not come to observe. He came to directly formally challenge the neutrality of the sitting judge.
Kejriwal submitted a recusal application requesting that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma step away from hearing a pivotal petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The federal agency is currently attempting to overturn a major February 27 trial court order that completely discharged Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 others in the controversial excise case. The sudden courtroom maneuver immediately sparked a fierce procedural showdown between the former Chief Minister and the state’s top legal representatives.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central investigative agencies, unleashed a scathing objection to the recusal plea. He accused the political leader of deliberately attempting to damage the judiciary’s reputation. According to a detailed report from the courtroom, Mehta pointed out that this was the seventh such recusal application filed.
“Some people in this country make a career out of making serious allegations,” Mehta stated during the hearing. “There are allegations against the institution and we will support the institution.”
#Breaking Delhi High Court issues notice to CBI on Arvind Kejriwal's plea asking Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to recuse from the Excise policy case. Kejriwal told Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma that he will argue the recusal application himself. @barandbench @AamAadmiParty… pic.twitter.com/vOL8yxJdof
— Bolta India News (@Boltaindia_News) April 6, 2026
The hearing quickly devolved into a technical debate over legal representation. Mehta argued that Kejriwal could not simultaneously retain a lawyer on record and argue his own case, demanding he formally discharge his legal counsel if he intended to appear in person. Kejriwal countered this procedural blockade. He explained to the bench that he was forced to file the physical application in person because the court’s current digital rules restrict petitioners representing themselves from utilizing the e-filing system.
Following the intense exchange, the Delhi High Court officially issued a notice to the CBI regarding the recusal plea. The court scheduled the matter for its next crucial hearing on April 13, 2026.
This latest legal confrontation follows Kejriwal’s earlier, unsuccessful attempt to seek an administrative transfer of the case directly from the Chief Justice. He cited a “reasonable apprehension” of bias regarding Justice Sharma. The case remains a massive flashpoint in Indian politics, drawing immediate condemnation from rival factions. The Bharatiya Janata Party criticized the Monday appearance, with Delhi spokesperson Praveen Shankar Kapoor issuing a statement claiming the AAP leader’s actions demonstrated a severe lack of respect for the judicial system.
Why Kejriwal’s Direct Judicial Confrontation Alters Political Litigation
This development represents a drastic tactical escalation in how prominent political figures navigate federal corruption probes. By stripping away the traditional buffer of legal counsel to file a direct, in-person recusal application, Kejriwal is forcing a highly public examination of judicial neutrality. This is not standard legal maneuvering. It is a paradigm shift in political litigation that sends ripples through the broader world of Indian constitutional law.
The stakes for the AAP leadership remain exceptionally high. Kejriwal previously spent 156 days in federal custody before finally securing bail from the Supreme Court in an earlier phase of this exact same legal saga. The February 27 trial court discharge was a massive, hard-fought victory for the party, bringing severe judicial criticism down on the CBI’s investigative methods. The central agency’s aggressive push to reverse that discharge in the High Court threatens to pull the party’s top brass back into immediate legal jeopardy.
If the High Court ultimately rejects the recusal application on April 13, Kejriwal’s legal team will be forced to argue the merits of their trial court discharge before a judge they have now publicly accused of bias. Conversely, if the recusal is granted, it heavily disrupts the CBI’s momentum and forces a complete reassignment of one of the most politically explosive federal investigations in the country.