A new twist has emerged in the recusal plea involving Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma as Arvind Kejriwal files an additional affidavit citing conflict concerns. He highlights continuing professional engagements under the Central Government to justify recusal in case.
A fresh development has taken place in the ongoing matter relating to the recusal request made before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has now submitted an additional affidavit to support his plea that the judge should step aside from hearing the case.
In this new affidavit, Kejriwal says that some important details became known to him only after they were made public on 9 April 2026 through a report and RTI findings.
He refers to the empanelment details and allocation of legal work involving the judge’s children, Ishaan Sharma and Shambhavi Sharma.
In the latest affidavit, Kejriwal alleges that Justice Sharma’s children act as panel counsel for the Central Government. He further claims that the cases are assigned to them for advocacy by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who according to Kejriwal is also representing the CBI in the excise policy matter.
Quoting from his affidavit, he states,
“I state that subsequent to the filing of my recusal application, certain material facts came to my knowledge when they were released in the public domain on 9th April, 2026 by a Legal Reporter, Mr. Saurav Dass… I state that these are not nominal or honorary post awarded by the Central Government. These are continuing professional engagements under the Central Government, carrying with them Government briefs, Government work, Court visibility and financial benefit arising from the allocation of legal work by Central Government.”
Kejriwal argues that these positions are not symbolic but active roles linked to ongoing legal tasks assigned by the Central Government.
According to him, this makes the situation more serious, especially because of the political nature of the case.
His affidavit further highlights that the Solicitor General of India is responsible for giving legal matters to the judge’s children. He claims that this creates a direct concern in a politically sensitive case.
The affidavit stresses the point that “the political sensitivity of the case materially sharpens the conflict and amplifies the apprehension of bias”.
He then states his main concern in clear terms,
“But in a criminal case of this nature, where the prosecuting agency is the CBI, where the Central Government’s highest law officers appear against me, and where the immediate family members of the Hon’ble Judge hold multiple live Central Government panel engagements and receive Government work through the same legal establishment and law officer, the apprehension becomes direct, grave and impossible for me to ignore.”
In addition to these points, Kejriwal has requested that the court give him more time to present his oral arguments. He has said that the court did not indicate that it would complete the hearing on the same day by extending the session beyond normal working hours.
He has also insisted that he should be allowed to give his rejoinder submissions.
This latest affidavit adds another layer to the ongoing debate around judicial recusal and conflict of interest in sensitive criminal cases involving senior political figures.