Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has filed an additional affidavit before the Delhi High Court reiterating his request seeking disqualification of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the CBI’s appeal against their discharge in the tax policy case, alleging that the judge’s children have been posted with the Center and cases are being allotted by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, who is contesting the appeal on behalf of the agency.
In the affidavit filed a day after Justice Sharma reserved her ruling on the applications, Kejriwal stated that her son was appointed as a Group ‘A’ counsel representing the Center before the Supreme Court, while her daughter was appointed as a Group ‘C’ counsel representing the Center before the Supreme Court and also acting as an advocate for the Center before the Delhi High Court.
He further pointed out that both of them were assigned the matters by the SG, who is opposing the recusal application before Justice Sharma and is representing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the case.
The fear of bias arising from this situation is immediate and serious and cannot be overlooked, as the same legal officer and legal institution that represents the CBI before the judge is also part of the institutional framework responsible for allocating government work and case assignments to its members, the affidavit filed on Tuesday said.
Read also: No bias, no delay in Bhullar case: Kejriwal
“I state that in this case, the learned Solicitor General of India, appearing before this Hon’ble Court for the Central Bureau of Investigation, opposes my disqualification application, and defends the review petition against the order of dismissal passed in my favour. I respectfully state that this gives rise to a direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest. The legal officer and the same legal institution representing the prosecution side before this Hon’ble Court are also part of the institutional mechanism through which the Central Bureau of Investigation functions and government cases and government work are reserved for the immediate family members of the Hon’ble Judge adjudicating the case,” the affidavit stated. The command.
“But in a criminal case of this kind, where the prosecuting agency is the CBI, where senior law officials of the central government appear against me, and where the family members of the honorable judge hold several direct meetings of the Central Government Commission and receive government work through the same legal institution and legal officer, the arrest becomes direct, serious and impossible for me to ignore,” he added.
The affidavit also highlighted that Justice Sharma’s son was assigned a large amount of legal work for the central government, with 2,487 cases being allotted in 2023, 1,784 in 2024 and 1,633 in 2025.
In his affidavit, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convenor also stated that his concerns were aggravated by the alleged denial of the opportunity to make rejoinder submissions on his disqualification application, the conduct of the court in continuing and concluding the hearing on the applications after court hours, and on record that he left the court after submitting his submissions.
Concerns about the appearance of impartiality were further exacerbated, she added, as the court, while awaiting the motion to respond, proceeded to issue substantive orders in the main petition, including a direction to file a response by April 10, otherwise the right to file a response would be closed.
“I further state that while the motion to dismiss itself was still pending, this Honorable Court proceeded to pass effective orders in the main matter, including orders to the effect that the defendants’ right to file a reply would remain closed if it was not filed within a week. I respectfully submit that judicial expediency requires that while the question of reply was still awaiting resolution, such effective or coercive procedural orders should not have been passed affecting the substantive rights of the parties in the main review,” the affidavit added. The same, raises further concerns in my mind that even before the case of dismissal is finally decided, the proceedings are proceeded with on the understanding that the matter will continue before the same court as the previous course.
On February 27, the court released Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others, holding that the CBI materials did not even reveal a prima facie case. The agency has appealed this to the Supreme Court, calling the findings “inherently false” and ignoring key evidence.
On March 9, Justice Sharma’s bench stayed the trial court’s directions to take administrative action against the CBI employee, terming the statements “prima facie wrong”, and adjourned the ED proceedings pending the appeal.
The request to transfer the case to another judge was rejected by Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya on March 13, following which existing recusal requests were made by Kejriwal, Sisodia and others.
On Monday, after a hearing lasting over four hours, Justice Sharma reserved her order on the disqualification applications after a confrontation between the CBI and Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, along with four others.
