Kejriwal In Fresh Affidavit Before Delhi High Court Seeking Judge’s Recusal, Cites Alleged Bias & Institutional Conflict Concerns

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 affidavit also places on record the volume of government work allegedly assigned to the judge’s son, stating that he handled 2,487 cases in 2023, 1,784 in 2024, and 1,633 in 2025. Kejriwal has argued that such continued professional engagement with the Centre heightens concerns when the same legal machinery appears before the judge in a case involving a central agency.

Apart from the alleged conflict, Kejriwal has also raised procedural objections regarding the manner in which the proceedings were conducted. He has claimed that he was denied an adequate opportunity to present rejoinder submissions on the recusal application and that the hearing continued beyond court hours. The affidavit further notes that the Court recorded that he had left after making submissions, which he suggests does not fully capture the circumstances of the hearing.

Kejriwal has also taken exception to the Court passing substantive directions in the main matter while the recusal application was still pending. He has pointed to orders directing the filing of responses within a fixed timeline, failing which the right to reply would be closed. According to him, such directions during the pendency of a recusal plea create an impression that the matter is being proceeded with on the assumption that it will continue before the same Bench.

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.