Delhi High Court Recusal Plea: Court Accepts Arvind Kejriwal’s Fresh Written Submissions, Verdict At 4:30 PM
Delhi High Court took on record Arvind Kejriwal’s written submissions on record as an exception and reserved judgment in the recusal plea for later in the day
Arvind Kejriwal declined to participate in Delhi High Court proceedings citing concerns over judicial impartiality
The Delhi High Court on Monday witnessed sharp exchanges during the hearing of a recusal plea filed by Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy case, with Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ultimately taking his written submissions on record as an exception.
Appearing via video conferencing, Kejriwal requested the Court to accept his rejoinder to the affidavit filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the recusal proceedings. He submitted that the Registry had declined to accept his rejoinder.
Opposing the request, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that once judgment is reserved, no further pleadings are ordinarily taken on record. He pointed out that Kejriwal had already been granted latitude earlier to file an additional affidavit without objection.
“Throughout the country, when a judgment is reserved, no reply or document is taken on record… however, on the previous occasion, I did not object to his additional affidavit. This is taking things too far,” Mehta submitted, adding that the present filing was in the nature of written submissions rather than a rejoinder.
Kejriwal countered that refusal to take his response on record would lead to a “miscarriage of justice.” The Court, however, pushed back, with Justice Sharma observing that such a claim could not be made lightly.
“You cannot say that this is miscarriage of justice. You had, out of the way, been given an opportunity to file an additional affidavit after the orders were reserved. The Registry is following the rules. Court procedure will not change for anyone,” the judge remarked.
In a pointed submission, Mehta further contended that no ordinary litigant would have been granted such latitude. He also suggested that the additional affidavit bore the imprint of legal drafting, adding that no counsel appeared willing to argue the matter given the nature of allegations raised by Kejriwal.
“No other aam aadmi would have got this extra benefit... no responsible lawyer is ready to argue his case,” Mehta said.
Justice Sharma briefly responded, “But you just said it,” before proceeding to the next matter.
Shortly thereafter, in a significant turn, the Court decided to take Kejriwal’s written submissions on record, noting that he was appearing in person and was not assisted by any advocate. The move was treated as an exception to standard procedural practice.
The Court has now scheduled the pronouncement of judgment in the recusal plea for 4:30 PM later today.
Recently, CBI had opposed pleas filed by AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and other accused seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Delhi excise policy case, arguing before the Delhi High Court that the allegations are baseless and, if accepted, would have far-reaching consequences for the judiciary.
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 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.
Case Title: CBI v. Arvind Kejriwal
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Mentioning Date: April 20, 2026