In a recent development, Arvind Kejriwal has submitted an additional affidavit to the Delhi High Court, revealing that the children of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma are empaneled as central government counsel. The affidavit, dated April 14, asserts that records from the Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India, indicate that Mr. Ishaan Sharma, the son of Justice Sharma, is listed as a Group ‘A’ Panel Counsel for the Supreme Court of India and has previously worked for the central government at the Delhi High Court. Additionally, Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Justice Sharma’s daughter, is identified as a Government Pleader for the Delhi High Court and a Group ‘C’ Panel Counsel for the Supreme Court.
Kejriwal further noted that both children receive assignments from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represents the CBI in proceedings involving Justice Sharma. He argued that this situation raises a legitimate concern about potential bias, which necessitates Justice Sharma’s withdrawal from hearing the CBI’s appeal against his discharge in the liquor policy case.
The affidavit, which is in possession of The Indian Express, details what Kejriwal refers to as “newly discovered facts,” supported by official government documents and responses obtained through the Right to Information Act. These facts are presented to bolster his earlier request for recusal.
According to the affidavit, the positions held by Ishaan and Shambhavi Sharma are not ceremonial; they involve ongoing professional roles that include government assignments, court appearances, and financial remuneration. The document cites a 2022 notification from the Ministry of Law and Justice, asserting that the Solicitor General plays a crucial role in assigning cases to panel counsels in the Supreme Court and that cases are allocated through the Solicitor General’s office.
Kejriwal highlighted that, in this instance, the Solicitor General is representing the CBI, which is opposing his plea. He argued that the involvement of the same legal officer in the institutional framework that allocates work to Justice Sharma’s family creates a significant appearance of a conflict of interest.
Additionally, Kejriwal referenced RTI data indicating that a considerable number of cases have been assigned to Ishaan Sharma over the years, citing figures of 2,487 cases in 2023, 1,784 in 2024, and 1,633 in 2025. He contended that these statistics illustrate a substantial and ongoing professional relationship with the central government.
Kejriwal stressed that this case is politically charged, with him being a major opposition leader under investigation by a central agency. He invoked the Supreme Court’s assertion that investigative bodies must not only act fairly but must also be perceived as fair, emphasizing the importance of public trust in the judicial system.
In his affidavit, Kejriwal clarified that he is not accusing the court of actual bias or suggesting any ill intent. Instead, he posits that the circumstances create a reasonable fear that the judicial process may not reflect the necessary independence and neutrality mandated by law.
He argued that the legal standard for perceived bias does not require evidence of actual influence; rather, it suffices that a reasonable litigant could view the situation as potentially unjust.
Kejriwal also raised procedural issues related to the handling of his recusal motion, alleging that after he completed his arguments and exited the courtroom around 3:45 PM, proceedings continued beyond standard hours, with CBI submissions extending past 6:15 PM and reportedly concluding after 7 PM. He claimed this deprived him of a fair chance to present counterarguments and heightened his concerns regarding bias.
Moreover, he alleged that while his recusal request was still pending, the court issued substantive orders affecting the rights of the parties involved, which he deemed inappropriate.
In closing, Kejriwal asserted that the combination of factors, including the empanelment of the judge’s family members, the role of the Solicitor General, the allocation of government work, and the conduct of proceedings, creates a “direct and immediate” appearance of conflict of interest. He urged that, in the pursuit of justice and to uphold public confidence in judicial impartiality, the matter should not proceed under Justice Sharma’s purview.
