Arvind Kejriwal Seeks Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Recusal as CBI Challenges Delhi Liquor Policy Acquittal

Arvind Kejriwal Seeks Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Recusal as CBI Challenges Delhi Liquor Policy Acquittal

A Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audit confirms a staggering ₹2,027 crore revenue loss caused by “felonious decisions” within the Delhi liquor policy.

By Rakesh Raman
New Delhi | April 6, 2026

NEW DELHI — The Delhi High Court issued a notice to the CBI on Monday, April 6, 2026, regarding a plea from Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from the liquor policy case. Kejriwal, appearing in person, informed the court that he intends to argue the recusal application himself.

His request is grounded in a “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension” that the proceedings may lack impartiality, citing the judge’s previous decisions to deny bail to other accused in the same case—decisions that were later overturned by the Supreme Court.

The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, strongly opposed the application, noting that seven different recusal requests had been filed. Mehta characterized the allegations as a serious assault on the institution and warned that should these applications be rejected, they could be deemed as contempt of court. Justice Sharma has taken the application on record and scheduled the next hearing for April 13, 2026.

This procedural clash follows a broader legal offensive by the CBI, which recently filed a petition to overturn the “patently illegal” acquittal of 23 individuals, including Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, by a trial court in February 2026. The CBI’s appeal characterizes the trial court’s discharge order as a “jurisdictional overstep” that ignored an “evidentiary bedrock” of systemic corruption.

According to investigative reports, a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audit confirms a staggering ₹2,027 crore revenue loss caused by “felonious decisions” within the Delhi liquor policy. These decisions included arbitrarily increasing wholesaler profit margins from 5% to 12% to facilitate kickbacks. Furthermore, investigators have uncovered a “digital blackout” involving the coordinated destruction of 140 mobile phones by over 30 individuals to erase digital traces of the “proceeds of crime”.

[ 🔊 हाई कोर्ट में दिल्ली शराब घोटाला मामला: ऑडियो विश्लेषण ]

The CBI has also highlighted the “South Group” trail, alleging that embezzled funds were diverted to finance the AAP’s 2022 Goa Assembly election campaign. There is a deep concern regarding a suspected “bribe for bail” culture facilitated by influential intermediaries, suggesting that political wealth is being used to subvert judicial outcomes. The High Court’s upcoming decision on the recusal and the CBI’s revision petition will be a pivotal moment for institutional accountability and the sanctity of the law in India.

As the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) of Arvind Kejriwal is allegedly involved in multiple crime and corruption cases, the party follows the following 10-step corruption model.

1. Deceive: Win a state election by making false promises to the voters.
2. Loot: Drain the state exchequer through massive, calculated corruption scandals.
3. Expand: Use the stolen funds to buy footprints in new states.
4. Deflect: If caught, claim the investigation is “politically motivated.”
5. Subvert: If jailed, secure luxurious treatment through bribery of jail officials.
6. Intermediary: Employ a politically affiliated lawyer to bridge the gap to the bench.
7. Bribe for Bail: Leverage a corrupt judicial process to secure release.
8. Pseudo-Acquittal: Treat bail as a permanent victory and never return to jail.
9. Judicial Capture: Get acquitted by a judge who ignores clear evidence.
10. Repeat: Celebrate while holding thousands of crores in stolen funds and move to the next state.

Beyond the specific case, recent investigative discourse and research reports—such as the India Judicial Research Report 2025 and the India Corruption Research Report 2025—have raised provocative systemic critiques regarding a “vicious cycle” of institutional decay. These reports describe a “bribe for bail” culture facilitated by “criminal intermediaries” who leverage political affiliations to influence judicial outcomes.

By Rakesh Raman, who is a national award-winning journalist and social activist. He is the founder of the humanitarian organization RMN Foundation which is working in diverse areas to help the disadvantaged and distressed people in the society.