Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal has intensified his legal bid to have Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recuse herself from hearing the CBI’s challenge against his discharge in the Delhi liquor policy case. On Thursday, Kejriwal urged the Delhi High Court to take on record a fresh affidavit alleging a “direct conflict of interest” involving the judge’s family members.
The development occurred during a virtual hearing where Kejriwal, appearing via video-conferencing, submitted that material facts regarding the judge’s children being empanelled as central government lawyers had recently come to light.
In his additional affidavit dated April 14, the former Chief Minister claimed that Justice Sharma’s children are empanelled lawyers for the Union Government and receive legal work through the Solicitor General of India, who is currently representing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in this matter.
The affidavit, which cites information reportedly obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, alleges that substantial legal work has been allocated to the judge’s son. According to the submission, RTI records suggest that 2,487 cases were marked to him in 2023, followed by 1,784 in 2024 and 1,633 in 2025.
Kejriwal contended that these financial and professional links “amplified” his apprehension that the proceedings might lack the “full appearance of judicial detachment, independence and neutrality” required by law.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed the High Court registry to take the affidavit on record but issued a firm clarification regarding the status of the case.
“But this matter is reserved. I am not re-opening it. Reserved matters are not reopened,” the judge stated, referring to the fact that she had already reserved her verdict on the recusal application following arguments on April 13.
The court also directed the CBI to provide Kejriwal with a copy of the written submissions the agency intends to file in the matter.
The CBI is currently challenging a February 27 trial court order that discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others in the liquor policy case. The trial court had previously described the CBI’s case as “wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny.”
Kejriwal’s initial recusal plea, filed earlier this month, was based on Justice Sharma’s prior rulings—specifically her denial of relief to him regarding his arrest and her refusal of bail to co-accused Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, has vehemently opposed the recusal. Labeling the allegations as “unfounded” and “apprehensions of an immature mind,” Mehta argued that a judge should not succumb to such pressure as it would set a damaging precedent for judicial institutions.
