Justice Sharma’s children empanelled as Govt lawyers: Kerjiwal in HC on recusal plea

Seeking recusal of Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal has claimed in an affidavit that the judge’s children are empanelled Central Government lawyers who receive work through solicitor general Tushar Mehta who appeared for the CBI.

Kejriwal, in an additional affidavit filed in relation to his application seeking Justice Sharma to withdraw from hearing the probe agency’s petition against his discharge in the liquor policy case, said there was a “direct conflict of interest”, which “amplified” his apprehension and constituted grounds for recusal.

He also prayed for time to make further oral and rejoinder submissions, fearing that continuing the case before Justice Sharma might not carry the “full appearance of judicial detachment, independence and neutrality that the law requires”.

“(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,” the affidavit dated April 14 claimed.

Relying on documents in the public domain, including information received under the RTI mechanism, Kejriwal alleged that substantial legal work was allocated to Justice Sharma’s son.

“The RTI reply reported that the said social media post also mentioned that a total of 2,487 cases were marked to the son of the Hon’ble Justice in the year 2023; 1,784 cases in 2024 and 1,633 cases in 2025,” the affidavit submitted.

Kejriwal said he learnt about these “material facts” after filing the recusal application and emphasised that empanelment by the central Government was not honorary but involved court appearances and financial benefit.

In the affidavit, he further submitted that when Justice Sharma reserved a verdict on the recusal application on April 13 after holding court till 7 pm, he was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to make rejoinder submissions.

The AAP chief also said that during the pendency of the recusal application, the court proceeded to pass “effective” orders that closed his right to file a reply to the CBI’s petition if the same was not done within a week, which aggravated his apprehension.

Kejriwal raised several objections against the judge hearing the CBI plea on April 13, including that she had earlier denied him relief on his petition challenging his arrest, refused to grant relief on bail pleas of other accused, including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha, and also made “strong and conclusive” findings.

SG Mehta opposed the plea and urged Justice Sharma to initiate contempt action against Kejriwal and others for seeking her recusal.

Terming concerns by Kejriwal and others as “apprehensions of an immature mind,” Mehta told the court it was a matter of “institutional respect” and Justice Sharma should not succumb to pressure as her recusal on “unfounded allegations” would set a bad precedent.