AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal seeks recusal of a judge in the excise policy case, prompting BJP to criticize his respect for the judiciary.

New Delhi: Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief and former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and others previously accused in the excise policy case have moved a recusal application before Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma in the Delhi High Court, the party said in a statement on Sunday.

According to the statement, Kejriwal will also argue the case on Monday.

This comes after the Delhi High Court on March 16 granted Kejriwal and others more time to respond to the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI’s) plea challenging the release of Kejriwal and 22 others in the case. The court had listed the matter for hearing on April 6.

Responding to AAP’s application, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) said the move showed a “lack” of respect for the judiciary.

“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. Is this his respect for the judiciary and the judicial system?” said Delhi BJP spokesperson Praveen Shankar Kapoor.Earlier on March 11,Kejriwal and others wrote to Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya, seeking the transfer of the case from the assigned bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. They claimed they had a “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension” that the hearing in the matter would not be impartial or neutral.

They argued that during the first hearing on 9 March 2026, the high court issued notice and recorded a prima facie view that the trial court’s order discharging Kejriwal and 22 others in the case was “erroneous” without hearing the discharged accused.

Justice Upadhyaya denied the transfer request through a communication issued by the high court’s registrar general Arun Bhardwaj on March 13.

On February 27, the trial court had discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and 21 others in the case, concluding that it had no hesitation in holding that “CBI’s material did not even disclose a prima facie case, let alone a grave suspicion.”

In his 601-page order, Special Judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue also directed a departmental inquiry against the “erring investigating officer” who framed charges against the accused persons without material evidence, holding that the officer “abused” his official position to conduct an unfair investigation.

The agency then approached the Delhi High Court assailing this order on the ground that the verdict was passed by “ignoring” the evidence gathered by the agency, the findings were “inherently wrong,” and the agency collected several documents, examined witnesses, collected emails and WhatsApp chats, and its evidence was not in “air.”

On March 9, Justice Sharma, while issuing notice in CBI’s appeal, observed that the trial court’s observations were “prima facie erroneous.” She also stayed the trial court’s February 27 order until March 16, which directed departmental action against CBI’s investigating officer and included observations against him, noting that the remarks were “prima facie foundationally misconceived especially when made at the stage of charge itself.”The judge also requested the trial court to defer the Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering case that stemmed from the CBI case and await the outcome of CBI’s appeal against the February 27 verdict.