‘Afterthought To Malign Institution’: CBI Opposes Kejriwal’s Plea Seeking Judge’s Recusal Before Delhi High Court

In its written submissions and affidavit, the probe agency contended that Kejriwal’s claim of bias, based on the fact that Justice Sharma’s children are empanelled as counsel for the Central government, cannot be a ground for recusal. It asserted that neither of her children “ever dealt with or even assisted anyone” in matters related to the excise policy case.

“Both are independent practitioners and are not attached to any senior lawyer,” the CBI stated, adding that one of them has been on the Union government panel since 2022, contrary to allegations that the empanelment was recent.

Kejriwal, in an additional affidavit, had argued that the judge’s children being assigned work by the Solicitor General; who appears for the CBI, creates a “reasonable apprehension of bias”, warranting her recusal from the matter.

Rejecting this contention, the CBI warned that accepting such a proposition would lead to an untenable situation. “All learned Judges throughout the country will be disqualified to hear matters pertaining to such Government/s… if their relatives are on any government panel,” it submitted.

The agency further argued that extending this logic would mean disqualification of judges from hearing cases involving the Centre, States, or public sector undertakings merely because their relatives are empanelled with such entities.

Terming the recusal plea an “afterthought”, the CBI alleged that the additional affidavit was filed to “further malign the institution and the individuals to ensure bringing pressure upon this august institution.”

It also flagged what it described as an “orchestrated social media campaign” targeting Justice Sharma. According to the agency, selective and “premeditated” dissemination of information; particularly regarding the judge’s family members, was aimed at embarrassing the court and influencing proceedings.

The affidavit pointed to a sequence of events involving an RTI query and subsequent social media posts, claiming that details were amplified online soon after the court sought a response from the CBI on the recusal applications. “This tweet is immediately retweeted by Shri Arvind Kejriwal in few hours… in tandem,” the agency stated.

The CBI urged the court to take a firm stand, cautioning against what it called “unholy, unhealthy and anarchist practices” that attempt to browbeat judges through public campaigns. “It is a high time that a message goes… that unscrupulous persons… cannot embarrass, malign, and thereby pressurize any judge,” the affidavit said.

Addressing another ground raised by Kejriwal, the agency rejected the allegation that Justice Sharma’s attendance at an event organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP) indicated bias. It argued that mere participation in a seminar cannot be construed as ideological alignment, and accepting such reasoning would disqualify judges from hearing cases involving numerous political actors.

The controversy arises from the CBI’s challenge to a trial court order dated February 27, which discharged Kejriwal and several others in the excise policy case. Justice Sharma, while issuing notice on the CBI’s plea, had stayed certain directions against the investigating officer and made prima facie observations on the trial court’s findings.

Subsequently, Kejriwal and co-accused, including Manish Sisodia and others, moved applications seeking the judge’s recusal, alleging bias based on judicial observations, external associations, and now, familial links.

Kejriwal also appeared in person before the court to argue his plea. Following the hearing, videos of the proceedings circulated widely on social media, prompting the High Court to direct their takedown for violating rules on recording court proceedings.

The matter is currently pending for orders before the Delhi High Court.