Kejriwal’s recusal plea a bid to ‘malign’ court, CBI tells Delhi high court

The 13-page submissions, filed through advocates Manu Mishra and Garima Saxena, described Kejriwal’s additional affidavit — submitted after the court had reserved its verdict on the recusal plea — as an ’afterthought’

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Thursday opposed before the Delhi High Court Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case, arguing that accepting his contention would set a precedent that could effectively disqualify judges across the country from hearing cases involving governments or political figures.

AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal (above), in his affidavit, cited the volume of government work assigned to the judge’s son — 2,487 cases in 2023, 1,784 in 2024 and 1,633 in 2025 — to argue apprehension of bias. (HT Archive)

In its written submissions responding to Kejriwal’s additional affidavit — which alleged that the judge’s children are on a government panel and receive work from the law officer in the matter — the agency said such a position could also disqualify law officers who assign cases to panel lawyers from appearing before such judges.

It added that Justice Sharma’s son and daughter have neither dealt with nor assisted in any matter related to the excise case at any stage, and have not been involved in it in any capacity. Both are independent practitioners and are not attached to any senior advocate, the agency said.

The 13-page submissions, filed through advocates Manu Mishra and Garima Saxena, described Kejriwal’s additional affidavit — submitted after the court had reserved its verdict on the recusal plea — as an “afterthought” aimed at maligning the institution and exerting pressure on the court.

On February 27, a trial court discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and 21 others in the excise policy case, holding that the CBI’s material did not disclose a prima facie case, prompting the agency to challenge the order before the high court.

On March 9, Justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental action against a CBI officer, calling the remarks prima facie misconceived, and deferred ED proceedings.

Kejriwal moved for transfer of the case on March 11, which was rejected on March 13. He, along with Sisodia and four others, then sought Justice Sharma’s recusal. The court reserved its order on Monday, and Kejriwal filed an additional affidavit a day later, which was taken on record on Thursday.

The agency also claimed Kejriwal anticipated a challenge to the discharge order, pointing to an RTI filed on February 12, a day before the trial court reserved its order, seeking details of dockets assigned to Supreme Court panel counsel, including the judge’s son. It said the information was received on March 18 but surfaced publicly only on April 9, after Kejriwal was allowed to argue his recusal plea in person.

Kejriwal, in his affidavit, cited the volume of government work assigned to the judge’s son — 2,487 cases in 2023, 1,784 in 2024 and 1,633 in 2025 — to argue apprehension of bias.

The agency further alleged that the information was amplified on social media in a “coordinated manner” at Kejriwal’s behest.

Kejriwal also argued that the judge termed the trial court’s February 27 order erroneous after a brief hearing despite months of proceedings, and cited her prior involvement in related matters. He further alleged bias over her attendance at events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP).

Opposing this, the agency said accepting such arguments would mean any judge could be disqualified from hearing a case merely because a litigant “perceives” bias, including on the basis of attending public events.