Kejriwal Alleges Conflict of Interest in Delhi High Court Judge in CBI Liquor-Policy Case
New Delhi: Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal on Thursday urged Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court to formally accept his additional affidavit, which claims she has a "direct conflict of interest" in presiding over the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) petition against his discharge in the liquor-policy case. The judge directed the court registry to record the affidavit but emphasized she is not "reopening the matter," as the order on his recusal plea had already been reserved.
Court Proceedings and Affidavit Details
Kejriwal appeared virtually via video-conferencing to request that his additional affidavit be taken on record, after the registry indicated it could only do so with explicit court approval. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing CBI, informed the High Court that the agency would file a response to the affidavit.
In the affidavit dated April 14, Kejriwal alleged that Justice Sharma's two children are empanelled as central government lawyers who receive assignments through the solicitor general. He cited an RTI reply and a social media post, claiming "a total of 2,487 cases were marked to the judge's son in 2023; 1,784 cases in 2024, and 1,633 cases in 2025."
CBI's Strong Opposition and Institutional Concerns
Later that day, CBI submitted written arguments, denouncing Kejriwal's affidavit as a "belated attempt to further malign institutions and individuals" and labeling it "clearly an afterthought," given that the judgment was already reserved. The agency argued that the allegation of bias, based solely on the judge's children being central government lawyers, does not constitute valid grounds for recusal.
CBI clarified that neither Ishaan Sharma (the son) nor Shambhavi Sharma (the daughter) have ever handled or assisted in any matters related to the current offence at any stage of proceedings. The agency stated, "Both are independent practitioners and are not attached to any senior lawyer."
The probe body cautioned that accepting Kejriwal's argument could set a dangerous precedent, potentially disqualifying judges nationwide from hearing cases involving governments or political figures if their relatives serve on central or state government panels. CBI warned that such logic could extend to public sector undertakings, undermining judicial efficiency.
Broader Implications for Judicial Integrity
CBI accused Kejriwal and others seeking Justice Sharma's recusal of compromising "institutional integrity." The agency expressed concern that if litigants are allowed to "embarrass, malign, browbeat and pressurise the judges," it could encourage similar tactics by others across the country.
Highlighting the risks of misuse, CBI pointed out that "the modus operandi of making wild allegations and misusing social media can be adopted by any litigant in any part of the country before any court, starting from a trial court to Supreme Court." This statement underscores the potential for widespread disruption in the legal system if such practices are not curtailed.
