Explore Business Standard
Delhi High Court
Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, facing impeachment proceedings after wads of burnt currency notes were found at his residence here, has submitted his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu, sources said on Friday. "Your Excellency, While I do not propose to burden your august office with the reasons which have constrained me to submit this missive, it is with deep anguish that I hereby tender my resignation from the office of Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, with immediate effect. It has been an honour to serve in this office," the resignation letter sent to the President on April 9 said. Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court after burnt wads of currency notes were found at his official residence in New Delhi on March 14 last year.
Former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and other discharged accused in the liquor policy case cannot seek the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma merely because she attended a "legal seminar" by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad as it does not demonstrate any ideological association, the CBI has told the Delhi High Court. In a reply filed to applications by the AAP leader and others seeking the judge's recusal from hearing the Central Bureau of investigation's (CBI) challenge to the trial court's discharge order, the agency highlighted that several sitting Supreme Court judges, including Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and high court judges, have attended functions by the RSS-affiliated confederation of lawyers, and if their plea is accepted, all of them would have to recuse from hearing any case involving politically exposed persons as accused. The CBI asserted that making "unscrupulous" and "sweeping" allegations of bias over attending legal seminars, which had no ...
The Delhi High Court on Thursday gave a final opportunity to former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and others to respond to a plea by the Enforcement Directorate to expunge "unwarranted" remarks made against it by the trial court while discharging them in the liquor policy case. Observing that none of the respondents, except one, filed their responses even after seeking time on the last date of hearing, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the court will hear arguments in the case on April 22. "Last opportunity is granted to file reply, failing which the right to file reply will close. Arguments will be heard on the next date of hearing. List on April 22," the judge said. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the agency, said except Vinod Chauhan, others have chosen not to file their reply to the petition. On March 19, the court granted time till April 2 to Kejriwal and other respondents to reply to the ED's plea to expunge the remarks against
The Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, D K Upadhyaya, has declined a request by former chief minister and AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal and others to transfer CBI's plea against their discharge in the excise policy case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another judge. According to sources privy to the development, Justice Upadhyaya opined that Justice Sharma was hearing CBI's petition against the trial court's decision in accordance with the roster, and there was no reason to pass an order of transfer on the administrative side. A call for recusal has to be taken by the judge concerned, the chief justice clarified. The CBI's petition is listed for hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday. On March 11, Kejriwal, AAP leader Manish Sisodia, along with other accused in the excise policy case, made a representation to Chief Justice Upadhyaya to transfer CBI's plea against their discharge from Justice Sharma to another "impartial" judge. In the representation, Kejriwal ..
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a part of the December 2025 order of the Delhi High Court permitting the Lokpal to consider granting sanction to the CBI to file a chargesheet against Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra in the alleged cash-for-query scam. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to Moitra, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and BJP MP and complainant Nishikant Dubey on the Lokpal's plea against the high court order. On December 19, 2025, the high court had set aside an order of the Lokpal granting sanction to the CBI to file a chargesheet against Moitra in the alleged cash-for-query scam. "The learned Lokpal is requested to accord its consideration for grant of sanction under Section 20 of the Lokpal Act, strictly in accordance with provisions thereof as construed hereinabove, within a period of one month from today," the high court had said in para 89 of that judgement. The CJI-led bench stayed t
CBI officials on Thursday served a notice of the Delhi High Court to Telangana Jagruthi president K Kavitha here in connection with the excise policy case. Kavitha in a post on 'X' said she was served the notice by the central investigating agency. In the notice, Kavitha, who was among those discharged in the case by a Delhi court recently, was informed that the application/petition filed by the CBI against the trial court's decision, is fixed for hearing on March 16. "Should you wish to argue anything against the application/petition, you are at liberty to do so on the date fixed or any other date to which the case may be postponed. Also take notice that in default of your appearance on the date fixed and in the manner above, the application/petition will be heard and decided exparte in your absence," the notice read. She further said she is in consultation with her legal team and will respond appropriately through official channels. Kavitha, daughter of BRS president and former
Challenging the special court order discharging former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and others in the excise policy case, the CBI has submitted to the Delhi High Court that the order was based "on a selective reading of the prosecution case, disregarding the material showing the culpability of the accused", and was "patently illegal". In its 974-page petition before the high court, the CBI said the Special Judge essentially conducted a mini-trial and "spent 4 months' time reading only the file of the case", which shows appreciation of the evidence by the judge which "otherwise is not permitted at this stage". The special judge dealt with separate limbs of conspiracy in isolation rather than assessing the actions of the accused cumulatively, the agency also said. Terming the order "perverse", the agency said it suffers from "errors apparent on the face", is based on "misreading" of facts and violates the Supreme Court's assertions related to the stage when charges are to be .