The Central Bureau of Investigation opposed Kejriwal’s recusal request, arguing his logic would disqualify judges from hearing any government-related cases. The agency told the Delhi High Court that such claims are legally unsustainable and could disrupt the judicial system.
In a significant development in the Delhi excise policy case, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has filed an additional affidavit before the Delhi High Court. The affidavit is linked to the revision plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is challenging the discharge of Kejriwal in the case.
In his fresh submission, Kejriwal has raised concerns about a possible conflict of interest involving Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. He pointed out that both the son and daughter of the judge are empanelled as legal counsel for the Central Government, which is a party to the case through the CBI.
Kejriwal stated in his affidavit,
“I state that the official public records of the Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India, disclose that Mr Ishaan Sharma, son of Hon’ble Justice is empanelled by the Central Government-Union of India as Group ‘A’ Panel Counsel for the Supreme Court of India. The same official records further show that he has also held empanelment for Central Government work before the High Court of Delhi. I further state that the official records disclose that Ms Shambhavi Sharma, daughter of Hon’ble Justice, is empanelled by the Union of India as Govt Pleader for the High Court of Delhi and is also shown as Group ‘C’ Panel Counsel for the Supreme Court of India.”
According to Kejriwal, these facts were discovered later through official government documents, notifications, and information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. He claims these findings strengthen his earlier request for Justice Sharma to recuse herself from the case.
Kejriwal also clarified that these roles held by the judge’s children are not symbolic or honorary. Instead, they involve active legal work, including court appearances, allocation of cases, and financial benefits from the government.
He further connected this issue to the role of the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, who is representing the CBI in the present matter. The affidavit refers to a 2022 notification of the Ministry of Law and Justice, which explains how cases are assigned to panel lawyers.
Kejriwal argued that since the Solicitor General plays a key role in allocating government cases to empanelled lawyers, and is also appearing against him in this case, it creates what he described as a
“direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest.”
The affidavit also includes data obtained through RTI, which shows the number of cases assigned to Justice Sharma’s son in recent years. As per the figures cited, 2,487 cases were allotted in 2023, 1,784 cases in 2024, and 1,633 cases in 2025. Kejriwal argued that these numbers prove the professional relationship between the counsel and the government is ongoing and substantial.
He further highlighted the political sensitivity of the case, noting that he is a key opposition leader facing investigation by a central agency. Referring to earlier observations of the Supreme Court on the functioning of investigative agencies, he invoked the phrase “caged parrot” to stress the importance of both fairness and the appearance of fairness in such cases.
Importantly, Kejriwal made it clear that he is not accusing the judge of actual bias or wrongdoing. Instead, his argument is based on the legal principle that even a reasonable apprehension of bias is enough to seek recusal. He maintained that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
Apart from the conflict issue, Kejriwal also raised concerns about how the court proceedings were conducted. He stated that after he finished his arguments and left the court around 3:45 pm, the hearing continued beyond normal court hours. According to him, the CBI’s submissions went on till after 7 pm.
He claimed that he was not given a proper chance to respond to the arguments made by the CBI and that continuing the proceedings in his absence added to his concerns. He also alleged that while the recusal application was still pending, the court passed effective orders in the main case, which he believes was not appropriate.
Based on all these factors, Kejriwal urged that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma should step aside from hearing the matter. He argued that the situation creates a “direct and immediate” perception of conflict of interest, which could affect public confidence in the judicial process.
On Thursday, the Delhi High Court accepted Kejriwal’s additional affidavit and took it on record. However, Justice Sharma clarified that the court would not reopen the hearing in the matter, as the issue of recusal involving several accused persons has already been reserved for judgment.
Kejriwal appeared in person via video conference and requested the court to consider his additional submission. Meanwhile, the CBI has also filed its written arguments, specifically addressing the conflict of interest issue raised by Kejriwal, as confirmed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during the hearing.
The matter now awaits the court’s decision, which will determine whether Justice Sharma continues to hear the case or steps aside in view of the concerns raised.
Click Here to Read More On Arvind Kejriwal
