New Delhi: Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has filed an additional affidavit before the Delhi High Court in support of his plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the CBI’s revision petition in the alleged Delhi excise policy case, alleging that the judge’s immediate family members hold continuing legal engagements with the Central government.
In the fresh affidavit filed in the pending recusal proceedings, Kejriwal contended that official public records of the Department of Legal Affairs show that the son and daughter of the judge are empanelled as panel counsel for the Union government in the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court.
“These are not nominal or honorary posts awarded by the Central Government. These are continuing professional engagements under the Central Government, carrying with them Government briefs, Government work, Court visibility and financial benefit arising from the allocation of legal work by the Central Government,” the affidavit stated.
Kejriwal further alleged that under the Centre’s case allocation mechanism, the Solicitor General, who is appearing for the CBI, is involved in assigning matters to government panel counsel. “The very law officer and legal establishment representing the prosecuting side before this Hon’ble Court is also part of the institutional mechanism by which Central Government cases and Government work are allocated to the immediate family members of the Hon’ble Judge hearing the matter,” the affidavit said.
Calling it a “direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest”, Kejriwal said the circumstances create a reasonable apprehension in his mind regarding the fairness of the proceedings.
“I am not alleging actual bias, nor am I attributing any improper motive to this Hon’ble Court. My submission is constitutionally serious — that these circumstances create a real, objective and reasonable apprehension in my mind that the present proceedings may not carry the full appearance of judicial detachment, independence and neutrality that the law requires,” he said in the affidavit.
Referring to the political sensitivity of the case, Kejriwal stated that the matter involved prosecution by the CBI against “a principal political opponent of the ruling party at the Centre”, and argued that this context amplified the apprehension. “The apprehension becomes direct, grave and impossible for me to ignore,” the affidavit said.
Kejriwal also complained that he was denied a fair opportunity to make rejoinder submissions during the hearing on his recusal plea, stating that arguments by the CBI continued beyond normal court hours on the day he argued in person.
He further objected to the Delhi High Court passing procedural directions in the main revision petition while the recusal plea remained pending, saying such orders had aggravated his apprehension that the matter would continue before the same Bench “as a foregone course”.
The additional affidavit has been filed in the pending recusal application moved by Kejriwal and other accused seeking transfer of the hearing on the CBI’s revision plea to another Bench.
Earlier, after hearing detailed submissions from Kejriwal, who appeared in person, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the probe agency, the Delhi High Court had reserved its verdict on the recusal plea.
The recusal application was filed in proceedings arising out of the CBI’s revision petition challenging a trial court order discharging Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and other accused in the alleged corruption case linked to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22.
(IANS)
