Justice SK Sharma's Children Had No Role In Arvind Kejriwal's Case, Never Assisted In Any Proceedings: CBI Tells Delhi High Court

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has opposed before the Delhi High Court an additional affidavit filed by AAP Chief Arvind Kejriwal alleging bias on part of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, on the ground that her children are Central government panel counsel.

In its response, the CBI has said that neither of Justice Sharma's children have ever dealt with, assisted anyone or been involved in any capacity— in matters pertaining to the liquor policy case.

“Neither Shri Ishaan Sharma nor Ms. Shambhavi Sharma ever dealt with or even assisted anyone in any of the matters pertaining to the present offence before any court in past at any stage of proceedings or have been involved in the matter in any capacity whatsoever. Both are independent practitioners and are not attached to any senior lawyer,” the affidavit states.

CBI further said that Ishaan Sharma has been on the panel of Union of India since 2022, contrary to the allegation that he was inducted in the panel only recently, in 2025, Further, he is assigned matters alongwith other panel lawyers to assist the law officers in individual cases.

For context, in his additional response, Kejriwal stated that Justice Sharma's children are allotted work by the Solicitor General of India, who appeared for the CBI before Justice Sharma. This, according to him, created a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of Justice Sharma, requiring her recusal from hearing CBI's plea against the discharge in the liquor policy case.

The probe agency has said that if such allegations are accepted then all judges would be disqualified from hearing cases relating to State or Central Governments or PSUs.

Calling the allegations as an afterthought, CBI has said that an “orchestrated social media campaign” is going on against Justice Sharma.

CBI has said that extending Kejriwal's logic, all judges whose relatives are on the panel of either state or central government or any Public Sector Undertaking will be disqualified from hearing the cases of the respective state governments, central government, or the concerned PSUs.

CBI, in its response, has also said that Kejriwal's allegation of Justice Sharma's attending events of Adhiwakta Parishad which he claims to be a political organization as a ground for recusal, then every judge will be disqualified to take up any matters of Kejriwal as well, since he “perceives" a "reasonable bias" in his mind that each judge who attends the function of Adhivakta Parishad are necessarily biased.

Opposing the said allegations, the CBI has submitted that Kejriwal and other respondent accused were “confident” about their success in getting discharged and that the same will be challenged before High Court and will be listed before Justice Sharma as per the roster.

The agency has added that an unknown person not party to the proceedings filed an RTI on February 11, details of which were given on March 18. It says that the moment Justice Sharma passed an order on April 6 requiring CBI to file its response to the recusal applications, suddenly a tweet surfaced of RTI applicant "disclosing" details which Kejriwal already had as back as on March 18.

“This tweet is immediately retweeted by Shri Arind Kejriwal in few hours and other leaders of Shri Arvind Kejriwal's party in tandem,” CBI said.

CBI has also said that April 09 onwards, there is a very “selective, premeditated, and vitriolic online campaign” designedly launched by tweeting and re-tweeting the “misinformation”, making wild insinuations regarding the government panel work with the sole purpose of either embarrassing Justice Sharma or to bring pressure upon the bench.

The probe agency has said that “unholy, unhealthy and anarchist practices” must be nipped in the bud in the larger interest of judiciary as an institution.

“It is a high time that a message goes from this Constitutional court that unscrupulous persons, by using social media and applications containing wild allegations cannot embarrass, malign, and thereby pressurize any judge to protect an undefendable order and to achieve a desired result,” the affidavit says.

Furthermore, CBI has contended that it is discharging its functions independently and therefore cannot have any objection in the matter being heard by Justice Sharma or any other bench.

“The CBI is, however, not taking this particular case as a standalone case where unscmpulous litigant/s by making wild, baseless, mischievous and contemptuous allegations and using other individuals and social media attempting to bring the majesty of this institution into disrepute,” it said.

“If CBI, as a central investigating agency, does not take a stand in circumstances like this and if the Honble Bench also succumbs to such pressurizing tactics, it would become a very sad and unhealthy precedent whereby every Judge would be exposed to such orchestrated pressure tactics and maligning campaigns which may result in a strong hindrance in his deciding matters before him/her without fear or favour,” the response adds.

Finally, CBI has said that filing of the additional affidavit by Kejriwal must be deprecated in the strongest possible manner as it has been filed belatedly, despite having details of “malicious campaigning” available with Kejriwal since March 18, and after exhausting all other allegations. 

Earlier today, Kejriwal appeared in person through video conferencing before Justice Sharma requesting her to take his fresh response on record. Accepting the request, the Court took on record the additional affidavit.

It may be recalled that on April 13, Justice Sharma had reserved orders on the applications filed by Kejriwal and other accused, seeking her recusal from hearing the revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the discharge of all the accused in the liquor policy case. 

During the hearing, Kejriwal, who argued the matter himself, had orally submitted that there was a social media discussion regarding the professional association of Justice Sharma's children with the Central Government. Kejriwal had submitted that as per established traditions, judges recused if their kin had associations with any of the parties appearing in the matter.

After the conclusion of the hearing, Kejriwal filed the fresh affidavit, stating that he got records showing the empanelment of Justice Sharma's children as Central Government Counsel. While her son is a Group A panel counsel for the Supreme Court, her daughter is a Group C Panel Counsel.

Kejriwal said that since the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, is appearing for CBI opposing his discharge before Justice Sharma, the same gives rise to a direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest. He contended that the Solicitor General should have disclosed this association on the first date of the hearing itself.