Justice Sharma's Children Have 'Active Professional Ties' With Govt, Raises Conflict Of Interest Concerns: Arvind Kejriwal To Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Monday agreed to take on record the rejoinder filed by Aam Aadmi Party Chief Arvind Kejriwal in relation to CBI's response to his additional affidavit alleging bias on part of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, on the ground that her children are Central government panel counsel.

Kejriwal has sought Justice Sharma's recusal from hearing CBI's plea against his discharge in the liquor policy case.

Opposing CBI's stand that Justice Sharma's children never dealt with liquor policy cases, Kejriwal has said that "conflict arises not from prior participation in the present proceedings, but from the admitted existence of a live, active and ongoing professional relationship with the prosecuting side..."

He appeared in person via VC and requested that the affidavit in response to CBI's written submissions be taken on record.

Opposing the request, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that there is no procedure in law which allows filing of rejoinder to written submissions.

However, Justice Sharma agreed to treat Kejriwal's rejoinder as written submissions instead, and took the same on record. The judge said,

"Filing of rejoinder to written submissions is not permitted. But since Mr. Kejriwal is alleging bias, I am going out of the way and allowing his request by treating the rejoinder as written statement. I will take it on record as a written submission."

SG Mehta also submitted that no pleadings can be filed after a Court reserves the matter for judgment. He submitted that the Court had made it clear that it will hear the matter fully on April 13. Kejriwal had completed his arguments that day and thereafter left the premises. The recusal application was then reserved for judgments. Subsequently, Kejriwal filed an additional affidavit, linking Justice Sharma's children to the case. The same was taken on record by the Court despite reserving judgment.

The SG submitted that now, once again, the AAP supremo has come seeking that his rejoinder affidavit be taken on record, when the matter is listed for pronouncement of judgment today at 2.30 pm.

Justice Sharma however took Kejriwal's submissions on record and deferred the pronouncement of judgment to 4.30 pm.

To recall, Kejriwal, in his additional affidavit 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.

Responding to this, Kejriwal has now said that CBI itself admits a “live, continuing and active professional relationship” between the Central Government's litigation establishment and the immediate family members of Justice Sharma.

He says that even on CBI's own version, the children of Justice are not passive names on a panel but active recipients of Government litigation work.

“In a shocking attempt to avoid answering the specific and peculiar facts disclosed by the Applicant, the CBI has chosen to state that “all learned judges throughout the country will be disqualified”. This falsely widens the controversy and mischievously drags the entire Indian judiciary into the present lis, which patently contemptuous,” he says.

“The CBI's written submissions, when stripped of rhetoric, amount to this: that the children of the Hon'ble Judge are indeed on Central Government panels; that Central Government work is indeed marked to them through the Ld. Solicitor General-led litigation structure; that such work is in fact assigned to them; and that the learned Solicitor General is appearing against the Applicant in this case. Once these facts are admitted, the prosecution cannot be permitted to evade the legal consequence by merely accusing the Applicant of having raised them,” he adds.

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.

Responding to the additional affidavit, CBI filed its response saying 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.

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.

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