Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Sunday approached the Supreme Court of India seeking transfer of the CBI’s appeal against his discharge in the Delhi excise policy case from the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court to another judge.Kejriwal, along with former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, has also challenged the HC’s summons in the apex court. Sisodia has filed a separate petition questioning the summons issued against him in the same case. The matter is likely to be listed for hearing on Monday.The move comes days after Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya of the Delhi High Court declined Kejriwal’s request to transfer the case from the bench of Justice Sharma.In a communication dated March 13, the High Court’s Registrar General informed eight applicants, including Kejriwal, that the plea for transfer had been rejected. The communication quoted the Chief Justice as stating that the petition had been assigned to the judge as per the existing roster.“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,” the letter said.In a letter dated March 11, Kejriwal had expressed apprehension that if the matter continued before Justice Sharma, the proceedings “may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality and neutrality”.The development comes after a trial court on February 27 discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused in the excise policy case. The Central Bureau of Investigation challenged the order before the Delhi High Court, where the matter is being heard by Justice Sharma.On March 9, Justice Sharma issued notice on the CBI’s plea and stayed the trial court’s direction seeking departmental proceedings against the investigating officer of the agency. The judge also recorded a prima facie view that certain observations made in the trial court’s order appeared to be erroneous.In the same order, the High Court directed the trial court to defer proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) Act, which are based on the CBI’s FIR.Kejriwal, in his representation, said the March 9 order did not disclose reasons explaining what “perversity” justified passing an ex parte restraint order. He argued that interim interference with a discharge order is considered an extraordinary measure and is generally exercised only in rare circumstances where clear illegality or perversity is demonstrated.He further contended that the High Court directed the trial court to defer the PMLA proceedings even though the Enforcement Directorate was not a party before the court in the matter.According to Kejriwal, granting such consequential relief at the threshold stage, without it being specifically pleaded and without hearing the discharged accused, strengthened his apprehension that the revision petition may not be considered with the required judicial detachment.