Seeking recusal of Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal has alleged in an affidavit that members of the judge’s family are empanelled central government lawyers who receive work through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the liquor policy case.
Kejriwal, in an additional affidavit supporting his recusal plea, said there was a “direct conflict of interest”, which “amplified” his apprehension and formed grounds for seeking withdrawal of the judge from the matter.
He also sought time to make oral and rejoinder submissions, saying continued hearing may 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 stated.
Kejriwal referred to material in the public domain, including RTI information, to claim that legal work had been assigned 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 said.
He said this came to his notice after filing the recusal application, and argued that empanelment with the central government was not honorary and involved court appearances and financial benefit.
Kejriwal also said that when Justice Sharma reserved order on April 13 after court proceedings continued till 7 pm, he was not given adequate opportunity to make rejoinder submissions.
The Aam Aadmi Party chief said the court, during hearing of the recusal application, passed “effective” directions that closed his right to file a reply to the CBI petition if not done within a week, which added to his apprehension.
He objected to Justice Sharma hearing the CBI plea, noting that she had earlier denied relief on his petition challenging arrest, refused bail to other accused including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha, and made what he described as “strong and conclusive” findings.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the plea and sought initiation of contempt proceedings against Kejriwal and others for seeking recusal of the judge.
Calling the concerns “apprehensions of an immature mind,” Mehta told the court the issue was one of “institutional respect” and said Justice Sharma should not yield to pressure, warning that recusal on “unfounded allegations” would set a precedent.