With the Delhi High Court rejecting his prayer to transfer the CBI’s appeal against the discharge of the accused in the excise policy case from the single judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Aam Aadmi Party National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal on Sunday moved the Supreme Court with the request.

Kejriwal is also learnt to have filed an appeal against the observations made by the high court in its March 9 order while hearing the CBI’s appeal against the trial court order discharging him and others in the case.

The Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, DK Upadhyaya, rejected Kejriwal’s representation requesting for a transfer of the revision petition filed by the CBI against the discharge of the accused in the alleged liquor “scam” from the bench of Justice Sharma to “any other appropriate bench” of the court.

A communication, dated March 13, coming through the Registrar General’s office of the Delhi High Court, stated that Chief Justice Upadhyaya “did not find any reason” to transfer the petition as requested by Kejriwal and the other accused.

Chief Justice Upadhyaya noted in the communication: “The petition is assigned to the Hon’ble judge as per the current roster. Any call of recusal has to be taken by the Hon’ble judge. I, however, do not find any reason to transfer the petition by passing an order on the administrative side.”

On March 11, Kejriwal and other AAP leaders had written to the Chief Justice seeking the transfer of the case citing “grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension that the matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality” before Justice Sharma.

On February 27, a trial court had discharged all 23 accused in the CBI case, including Kejriwal and Sisodia. After the CBI challenged the order, the high court on March 9 stayed the trial court’s observations recommending departmental action against the Investigating Officer (IO). The order was passed ex parte after no one appeared on behalf of the accused.

In her order, Justice Sharma said that the stay was necessitated by “certain factual discrepancies” in the trial court’s order. The high court said that some of the trial court’s observations regarding statements of witnesses and approvers, made at the stage of charge itself, prima facie appeared to be “erroneous”.

Justice Sharma also requested that the trial court’s proceedings in the Enforcement Directorate case, which is based on the CBI’s case, be deferred.

The representation had followed after ED too had moved the Delhi High Court, seeking an expungement and deletion of alleged adverse remarks against the agency.

The matter is now expected to be heard by Justice Sharma on Monday.