Arvind Kejriwal declined to participate in Delhi High Court proceedings citing concerns over judicial impartiality

The Delhi High Court on Thursday took on record an additional affidavit filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal, in which he reiterated his plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the CBI’s petition challenging his discharge in the excise policy case.

Justice Sharma clarified, however, that the matter would not be reopened, as the Court had already reserved its verdict on the recusal application.

Kejriwal, appearing through video conferencing, informed the Court that he had submitted the affidavit before the registry but required the Court’s permission to have it formally placed on record.

“I want to file an additional affidavit. I have already filed it in the registry, but they need the court's permission to take it on record,” he submitted.

Allowing the request, the Court directed the registry to accept the affidavit, while making it clear that the proceedings would not be reopened at this stage.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), told the Court that a similar request had earlier been declined. However, he stated that the agency would proceed to file its written submissions in the matter.

“The request was made and declined. But I have no difficulty. We will file our written submissions,” Mehta said.

Kejriwal responded by requesting that copies of the written submissions be shared with him as well.

The affidavit was filed a day after Justice Sharma reserved orders on the recusal applications following extensive arguments. Kejriwal has raised concerns over an alleged conflict of interest, pointing to the professional engagements of the judge’s immediate family members with the Central government’s legal establishment.

According to the affidavit, Justice Sharma’s son is empanelled as a Group A counsel representing the Centre before the Supreme Court, while her daughter is empanelled as a Group C counsel for the Centre and also serves as a government pleader before the Delhi High Court. Kejriwal has contended that both are assigned cases by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is appearing for the CBI in the present proceedings and opposing the recusal plea.

Kejriwal has argued that this institutional overlap gives rise to a “direct and serious” apprehension of bias. He submitted that the same legal establishment representing the prosecuting agency before the Court is also responsible for allocating government work to the judge’s children, thereby creating a situation that undermines the appearance of neutrality. “In a criminal case of this nature… the apprehension becomes direct, grave and impossible for me to ignore,” the affidavit states, adding that the issue goes beyond mere perception and touches upon the fairness of the adjudicatory process.

The developments arise in the backdrop of the trial court’s February 27 order discharging Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and several others, holding that the material placed by the CBI did not disclose even a prima facie case. The CBI challenged this order before the High Court, terming the findings erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record.

On March 9, Justice Sharma’s Bench stayed certain adverse observations made by the trial court against a CBI officer, describing them as “prima facie foundationally misconceived.” Proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate were also deferred pending the outcome of the appeal.

Earlier, a request to transfer the case to another Bench had been declined by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, following which the recusal applications were filed by Kejriwal, Sisodia and other co-accused. In his letter seeking transfer of the case, Kejriwal had argued that the March 9 order did not disclose reasons explaining the “perversity” that justified an ex parte stay on the discharge order. He had contended that interim interference with a discharge order is an extraordinary measure that should be exercised only in rare circumstances.

After a detailed hearing that reportedly extended for over four hours, the Court has reserved its verdict on the recusal pleas.

In a related news, the Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of video recordings of Arvind Kejriwal’s court appearance from social media platforms, triggering a fresh controversy at the intersection of law, politics, and digital dissemination of judicial proceedings. The direction was issued by Registrar General Arun Bhardwaj, who held that the recording and circulation of court proceedings amounted to a clear violation of the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025.

Case Title: CBI v. Arvind Kejriwal

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Mentioning Date: April 16, 2026

Tags: