The Delhi High Court accepted Kejriwal’s new affidavit seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal but made it clear the case will not be reheard. The Court said the matter remains reserved, even as fresh conflict of interest claims were placed on record.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday agreed to take on record a fresh affidavit filed by Arvind Kejriwal in connection with his plea seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the Delhi excise policy case.
Kejriwal appeared through video conference and personally requested the Court to allow his additional affidavit to be formally included in the case record. The Registry had earlier indicated that such a filing would require the Court’s permission.
Allowing the request, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma permitted the affidavit to be taken on record but made it clear that the matter would not be reopened for further hearings since the judgment had already been reserved.
“We are taking it on record. The registry will take it on record. Please file it through electronic mode. The copy (of the CBI’s written submissions) may be given to the other side. This matter is reserved. I am not reopening it,”
the judge stated.
During the proceedings, Kejriwal explained his position to the Court, saying,
“I want to file an additional affidavit. I have already filed it in the registry, but they need the court’s permission to take it on record.”
Appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Solicitor General Tushar Mehta responded,
“The request was made and declined. But I have no difficulty. We will file our written submissions,”
to which Kejriwal added,
“The written submissions may be shared with us too.”
The new affidavit filed by Kejriwal raises concerns regarding a possible conflict of interest. It claims that Justice Sharma’s children are empanelled as counsel for the Central government and receive case assignments from the Solicitor General, who is representing the CBI in the same matter.
According to the affidavit, this creates a
“direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest.”
The case originates from a trial court order dated February 27, which discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused in the Delhi excise policy case. The CBI challenged this discharge before the High Court, where the matter is currently pending before Justice Sharma.
Earlier, on March 9, the High Court issued notice in the CBI’s plea and stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental proceedings against the investigating officer. The Court also observed prima facie that certain findings of the trial court appeared to be erroneous and directed that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which are based on the CBI FIR, be deferred.
Subsequently, Kejriwal along with other accused including Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai, and Chanpreet Singh Rayat filed applications seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal. They argued that her earlier observations and conduct raised a reasonable apprehension of bias. They also pointed to her attendance at an event organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), which they described as the legal wing of the RSS.
The CBI strongly opposed these allegations, stating that mere participation in a seminar does not indicate ideological bias. It also argued that Justice Sharma has passed orders favourable to multiple accused in the same case, rejecting claims that proceedings were being rushed.
Earlier this week, on April 13, Kejriwal had personally argued his recusal plea before the Court. He submitted that both judicial orders and certain external factors had created doubts in his mind about receiving a fair hearing.
Following that hearing, videos of Kejriwal arguing in court went viral on social media. The High Court later directed that such videos be taken down, emphasizing that recording and sharing court proceedings without permission is not allowed.
With the latest development, the Court has accepted Kejriwal’s additional affidavit on record but has firmly maintained that the case will proceed based on the existing submissions, with no further hearings before the final verdict.
Click Here to Read More On Women’s Reservation
