Seeking Justice SK Sharma's Recusal, Kejriwal Files New Affidavit Citing Her Children's Empanelment As Central Govt Counsel

In his plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court from hearing the liquor policy case, AAP Supremo Arvind Kejriwal has filed an additional affidavit stating that Justice Sharma's son and daughter are both empanelled as Central Government Counsel.

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.

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 present 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. He cited the materials brought to the public by legal reporter Saurav Das.

He referred to a FAQ response available on the website of the Ministry of Law & Justice which stated - “While in Supreme Court, Ld. Attorney General for India selects cases for his own appearance while other cases are marked by the Ld. Solicitor General for India to Additional Solicitors General for India and Panel Counsel.”

Kejriwal has 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.

“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,” he has said.

Kejriwal further stated that a substantial number of cases have been allocated to the son of Justice Sharma.

“ I further state that additional documents available in public domain including RTI material indicate substantial allocation of Central Government's legal work to the son of Hon'ble Justice over a sustained period. The RTI reply reported in the said social media report also mentioned that a total of 2,487 cases were marked to the son of the Hon'ble Justice in the year 2023, 1784 cases in 2024 and 1633 cases in 2025,” Kejriwal has submitted.

The affidavit also says that the “political context” materially sharpens the conflict and amplifies the apprehension.

Kejriwal has said that in a criminal case of such political nature, where the prosecuting agency is the CBI, where the Central Government's highest law officers appear against him, and where the immediate family members of the 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 o ignore.

However, he also clarified that he was not alleging actual bias, nor he was attributing any improper motive to the Court, but was only saying that the circumstances create a real, objective and reasonable apprehension in his mind that the proceedings may not carry the full appearance of judicial detachment, independence and neutrality that the law requires.

"I therefore respectfully submit that the continuance of the present revision petition before the Hon'ble Justice would give rise to an immediate and direct appearance of conflict of interest, particularly in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this politically sensitive case, and the interests of justice would be best served if the matter is not heard further by Her Ladyship," he pleaded.

Kejriwal also stated that he has not got adequate opportunity to respond to the arguments of the CBI.

“I say that the submissions on behalf of the CBI continued till after about 6:15 PM. In the ordinary course, and particularly since I was appearing as party-in-person, it was reasonable for me to expect that some reasonable time [even can be the next day itself] and opportunity to address would be granted to me thereafter to prepare and address rejoinder submissions, especially in a matter of this gravity involving a recusal plea founded on several factual and legal issues. However, the proceedings were continued by this Hon'ble Court beyond 7:00 PM and were concluded on the same day itself, with the result that I was effectively denied any fair and reasonable opportunity to prepare and advance rejoinder arguments. I request the Hon'ble Court to grant me time to place the present facts in an oral hearing. In any event, I request the Hon'ble Court to take these on record and consider them, as in my respectful submission, they by themselves constitute a direct conflict of interest and ground for recusal,” he said.