AAP convener Arvind Kejriwal on Wednesday filed an additional affidavit before the Delhi High Court seeking the recusal of Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma from hearing the CBI’s revision petition in the excise policy case, placing on record details of the empanelment of the judge’s son and daughter as Union Government counsel.
The fresh affidavit comes after a hearing on April 13, when Justice Sharma had reserved orders on applications moved by Kejriwal and other accused seeking her recusal. During that hearing, Kejriwal, appearing in person, had referred to material in the public domain regarding the professional association of the judge’s children with the Centre and argued that established judicial practice required recusal in such circumstances.
In his additional affidavit, Kejriwal stated that subsequent records confirmed that both the judge’s children were part of the Centre’ panel system. According to the filing, her son is a Group A panel counsel for the Supreme Court, while her daughter is empanelled as a Group C panel counsel.
He submitted that work is allocated to such panel counsel through the institutional mechanism operated by central law officers, including Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is appearing for the CBI in the present case opposing the discharge of the accused.
Referring to material available on the website of the Ministry of Law and Justice, the affidavit states that while the Attorney General selects cases for personal appearance, other matters are assigned by the Solicitor General to Additional Solicitors General and panel counsel. On this basis, Kejriwal has argued that the same legal establishment representing the prosecuting agency is also involved in allocating government work to the immediate family members of the judge hearing the case.
“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 Union Government cases and government work are allocated to the immediate family members of the judge hearing the matter,” the affidavit read.
Kejriwal further relied on RTI material to underline the extent of such allocations. “A total of 2,487 cases were marked to the son of the judge in 2023, 1,784 cases in 2024 and 1,633 cases in 2025,” the affidavit read, adding that this reflects a continuing and substantial professional engagement with the Centre.
He contended that in the context of a criminal prosecution by the CBI, where senior law officers were appearing against him, these circumstances gave rise to a “direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest”. The affidavit said the political context of the case further intensified the apprehension.
Kejriwal, however, clarified that he was not alleging actual bias or attributing any improper motive to the court, but had argued that the legal standard rests on whether there existed a real and reasonable apprehension regarding the appearance of judicial independence and neutrality. The affidavit also raises concerns regarding the conduct of the April 13 hearing. Kejriwal has stated that arguments on behalf of the CBI continued till after 6:15 pm and proceedings went on beyond 7 pm, but he was not granted an opportunity to prepare and advance rejoinder submissions despite appearing in person. He has sought time to address the court further and requested that the additional material be taken on record.
