Kejriwal files additional affidavit for recusal citing empanelment of judge’s children

FHaliotis tuberculata new new delhi chief government minister Arvind Kejriwal has filed an additional affidavit before the Delhi heights court reiterating his request of seeking Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s recusal from hearing CBI’s appeal against their discharge in the excise policy case, contending that the judge’s children are empanelled with the Centre and are allocated cases by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, who is contesting the appeal on behalf of the agency.In the affidavit filed a day after Justice Sharma reserved her verdict on the applications, Kejriwal stated that her son is empanelled as a Group A counsel representing the Centre before the Supreme Court, while her daughter is empanelled as a Group C counsel representing the Centre before the Supreme Court and also serves as a pleader for the Centre before the Delhi High Court.He further noted that both are assigned matters by the SG, who is opposing the recusal plea before Justice Sharma and representing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the case.The affidavit, filed on Tuesday, stated that the apprehension of bias arising from this situation is direct, serious, and cannot be overlooked, as the same law officer and legal establishment representing the CBI before the judge is also part of the institutional framework responsible for allocating government work and case assignments to her children.Also Read: No bias, no delay in Bhullar case: Kejriwal“I state that in the present case, the Learned Solicitor General of India, who is appearing before this Hon’ble Court for the Central Bureau of Investigation, is opposing my recusal application, and is arguing the revision petition against the discharge order passed in my favour. I respectfully state that this gives rise to a direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest. The very law officer and legal establishment representing the prosecuting side before this Hon’ble Court is also part of the institutional mechanism by which Central Government cases and Government work are allocated to the immediate family members of the Hon’ble Judge hearing the matter,” the affidavit stated.“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”, it added.The affidavit further highlighted that Justice Sharma’s son has been entrusted with a significant volume of Central government legal work, with 2,487 cases assigned in 2023, 1,784 in 2024, and 1,633 in 2025.In his affidavit, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convenor further stated that his apprehensions were heightened by the alleged denial of an opportunity to present rejoinder submissions on his recusal application, court’s conduct of continuing and concluding the hearing on the applications beyond court hours, and recording in the order that he had left the court after making his submissions.It added that concerns over the appearance of neutrality were further aggravated as, during the pendency of the recusal application, the court proceeded to pass substantive orders in the main petition, including directing that a response be filed by April 10, failing which the right to file a reply would be closed.“I further state that while the recusal application itself was still pending consideration, this Hon’ble Court proceeded to pass effective orders in the main matter, including orders to the effect that the right of the respondents to file reply would stand closed in case not filed within a week. I respectfully submit that judicial propriety required that, while the issue of recusal was still awaiting decision, no such effective or coercive procedural orders affecting the substantive rights of parties ought to have been passed in the main Revision Petition. The repeated passing of such orders, during the pendency of the recusal application itself, gives rise to a further apprehension in my mind that even before the recusal issue is finally decided, the proceedings are being carried forward on the footing that the matter will continue before the same Bench as a foregone course,” the affidavit added.On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others, holding that the CBI’s material did not disclose even a prima facie case. The agency challenged this in the high court, calling the findings “inherently wrong” and ignoring key evidence.On March 9, Justice Sharma’s bench stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental action against the CBI officer, terming the remarks “prima facie foundationally misconceived”, and deferred ED proceedings pending the appeal.A plea to transfer the case to another judge was rejected by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya on March 13, following which the present recusal applications were filed by Kejriwal, Sisodia and others.On Monday, after a hearing lasting over four hours, Justice Sharma reserved her order on the recusal applications following a face-off between the CBI and Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, along with four others.