Arvind Kejriwal, former Chief Minister of Delhi and leader of the Aam Aadmi Party, may appear in person before the Delhi High Court on 6 April 2026. He argued a recusal plea seeking the withdrawal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s appeal against a trial court order that had discharged him and 22 others in the alleged excise policy case. The matter concerns the challenge to the trial court’s acquittal of Kejriwal and others in a case related to the Delhi government’s liquor policy.According to Deccan Herald, Kejriwal’s appearance is in response to the Enforcement Directorate’s petition challenging his acquittal for alleged non-compliance with summons during the investigation. The Rouse Avenue Court had previously acquitted Kejriwal on 22 January 2026, stating that the Enforcement Directorate had not established deliberate disobedience of its summons.As reported by The Indian Express, the recusal plea was filed after the case was listed before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, whose roster includes criminal cases involving Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly. Kejriwal and other discharged accused argued that there was a “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension” regarding the impartiality of the proceedings if Justice Sharma continued to hear the matter.As highlighted by Hindustan Times, Kejriwal’s legal team had earlier written to Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya of the Delhi High Court, seeking transfer of the case to another bench. The request was denied, and the matter was subsequently listed for hearing on 6 April 2026, with Kejriwal deciding to argue the recusal plea himself.The trial court’s order on 27 February 2026 had discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and 21 others, concluding that the Central Bureau of Investigation’s material did not disclose even a prima facie case. The court also directed a departmental inquiry against the investigating officer, stating that the officer had “abused” his official position. The CBI then appealed this order, arguing that the findings were “inherently wrong” and that evidence had been collected through documents, witness statements, emails, and WhatsApp chats as coverage revealed.Arvind Kejriwal’s Legal Relief Is Also a Test for India’s InstitutionsOn 9 March 2026, Justice Sharma issued notice in the CBI’s appeal and observed that the trial court’s order was “prima facie erroneous.” She also stayed the trial court’s directive for departmental action against the investigating officer and requested the trial court to defer proceedings in the Enforcement Directorate’s related money laundering case as analysis showed.“The trial court had no hesitation in holding that CBI’s material did not even disclose a prima facie case, let alone a grave suspicion,” the February 27 order stated, as referenced in the court documents.During the hearing, Kejriwal’s plea for recusal was based on concerns that the matter would not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality. The Delhi High Court had previously granted Kejriwal and others more time to respond to the CBI’s appeal, listing the matter for 6 April 2026 as reporting indicated.The Bharatiya Janata Party, through its Delhi spokesperson, criticised Kejriwal’s move, stating that it reflected a lack of respect for the judiciary. The spokesperson commented on the sequence of legal actions taken by Kejriwal after the transfer petition was denied at the end of the statement.“This announcement completely exposes Arvind Kejriwal, who is dejected and defeated on all fronts. After losing his petition to transfer the case (to another bench), Kejriwal will now petition the relevant judge himself to drop the case,” the BJP spokesperson said.The Supreme Court is currently considering an appeal regarding the transfer of the case, following the rejection of the representation by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. The outcome of Kejriwal’s recusal plea and the ongoing appeals remain pending as of 6 April 2026 as details emerged.'No Evidence': Delhi Court Clears Kejriwal, Sisodia In Excise Policy CaseNote: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.