On Thursday, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) informed the Delhi High Court that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s two children, who serve as counsels for the Union government, have not participated in any legal matters related to the excise policy case, either directly or indirectly. The CBI emphasized that the children have had no involvement in this case at any point during the proceedings.
This statement was made in response to a request from Arvind Kejriwal, the national convener of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), who is seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal from presiding over a CBI appeal that challenges the discharge of 23 individuals accused in the case. The CBI presented its arguments through an additional affidavit submitted on April 14, which was acknowledged by the court on Thursday.
The agency argued that if Kejriwal’s rationale for recusal were to be accepted, it would imply that judges across the nation would be disqualified from hearing cases involving the government or political figures merely because their relatives are on government panels. Kejriwal, who cited a potential conflict of interest due to the professional roles of Justice Sharma’s children, included this concern in his affidavit as one of several reasons for his request, suggesting that it could lead to bias from the judge.
The CBI dismissed Kejriwal’s claims as an “afterthought” intended to tarnish the reputation of both the judiciary and Justice Sharma. The agency warned that if Kejriwal’s argument were to be taken seriously, it would result in a situation where any judge with relatives on a government panel would be unable to hear relevant cases, creating a troubling precedent.
During the virtual hearing, Kejriwal requested that his additional affidavit be officially recognized by the court. Justice Sharma agreed to this request but clarified that she would not reopen the hearing, as the plea from many of the 23 accused seeking her recusal had already been reserved for a decision.
The CBI further pointed out that since April 9, there has been a targeted online campaign disseminating misinformation aimed at undermining the integrity of the court and applying pressure on the judiciary. The agency cautioned that if Justice Sharma were to recuse herself based on such claims, it would set a dangerous precedent, allowing litigants to manipulate judges through public pressure and smear campaigns.
While the CBI stated it does not object to whether Justice Sharma or another bench hears the matter, it expressed concern that yielding to such pressures would create a harmful environment where judges could be coerced and discredited, impairing their ability to make impartial decisions.
Kejriwal highlighted what he described as a clear conflict of interest, pointing out that Justice Sharma’s children are empanelled as legal counsels for the government. He noted that official records reveal her son, Ishaan Sharma, is a Group ‘A’ panel counsel for the Supreme Court, while her daughter, Shambhavi Sharma, is a government pleader for the Delhi High Court and classified as a Group ‘C’ panel counsel for the Supreme Court. Additionally, he mentioned that Justice Sharma attended events organized by the Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Parishad, raising concerns about potential bias due to the organization’s ideological leanings.
The CBI countered this assertion, arguing that if Kejriwal’s line of reasoning were valid, it would disqualify any judge from handling cases involving him, as he may perceive bias against judges who attend events hosted by the Adhivakta Parishad. The agency clarified that this organization is merely a bar association, and it is common for judges to participate in its functions which typically revolve around legal discussions.
After the proceedings, the AAP maintained that while the CBI did not refute the key points raised by Kejriwal regarding the judge’s children being on the government panel, it nonetheless argued that there was no conflict of interest involved. They pointed out that the CBI has not contested the facts regarding the professional roles of Justice Sharma’s children nor the substantial number of cases her son has handled since his appointment, questioning the absence of conflict of interest in this context.
Sohini Ghosh serves as a Senior Correspondent for The Indian Express, focusing on legal matters at the Delhi High Court. Previously, she reported from Ahmedabad and has now transitioned to the New Delhi bureau, where her work primarily involves high-profile legal disputes.
