Kejriwal urges Justice Sharma to take affidavit on record
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal urged Delhi High Court judge Swarana Kanta Sharma on Thursday to take on record his additional affidavit claiming that the judge has a “direct conflict of interest” in continuing to hear the CBI’s petition against his discharge in the liquor-policy case.
Justice Sharma directed the registry to take the former chief minister’s affidavit on record, while clarifying that she is not “reopening the matter” after reserving her verdict on his application seeking her recusal from hearing the case.
Kejriwal appeared before the court virtually through video-conferencing.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represents the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), said the agency would file its written submissions. On Kejriwal’s request, the court asked the federal agency to give him a copy of its submissions.
“But this matter is reserved. I am not re-opening it. Reserved matters are not reopened,” the judge clarified.
In his additional affidavit dated April 14, Kejriwal has claimed that the judge’s children are empanelled central Government lawyers who receive work through the solicitor general, who is appearing in the matter for the CBI.
He has said there is a “direct conflict of interest”, which has “amplified” his apprehension and constituted grounds for recusal.
Kejriwal has 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”.
Relying on documents in the public domain, including information received under the Right to Information (RTI) Act mechanism, Kejriwal has 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 has submitted.
Kejriwal has said that he learnt about these “material facts” after filing the recusal application and emphasised that empanelment by the central Government is not honorary but involves court appearances and financial benefit.
Kejriwal raised several objections against the judge hearing the CBI’s plea on April 13, including that she had earlier denied him relief on his petition challenging his arrest, refused to grant relief on the bail pleas of other accused, including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha, and also made “strong and conclusive” findings.
Mehta opposed the plea for recusal and urged Justice Sharma to initiate contempt action against Kejriwal and others.
Describing the concerns raised by Kejriwal and others as “apprehensions of an immature mind”, Mehta told the court that it is a matter of “institutional respect” and Justice Sharma should not succumb to pressure as her recusal on “unfounded allegations” would set a bad precedent.
The court reserved its verdict on the recusal plea on April 13.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the Delhi liquor-policy case, saying the CBI’s case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
