Kejriwal Cites Judge’s Children’s Legal Roles with Centre in New Conflict of Interest Claim

Arvind Kejriwal has submitted a supplementary affidavit to the Delhi High Court, once again requesting that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma withdraw from the CBI’s appeal regarding the excise policy case. The former Delhi Chief Minister argues that a conflict of interest exists because the judge’s children are employed by the central government and receive case assignments from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the CBI in this matter.

Submitted just one day after Justice Sharma reserved her decision, Kejriwal’s affidavit specifies that the judge’s son serves as a Group A counsel for the central government in the Supreme Court. Furthermore, it notes that her daughter acts as a Group C counsel for the Centre in the Supreme Court and holds a position as a central government pleader within the Delhi High Court.

“I state that in the present case, the Learned Solicitor General of India, who is appearing before this Hon’ble Court for the Central Bureau of Investigation, is opposing my recusal application, and is arguing the revision petition against the discharge order passed in my favour. I respectfully state that this gives rise to a direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest. The very law officer and legal establishment representing the prosecuting side before this Hon’ble Court is also part of the institutional mechanism by which Central Government cases and Government work are allocated to the immediate family members of the Hon’ble Judge hearing the matter,” the affidavit read.

“But in a criminal case of this nature, where the prosecuting agency is the CBI, where the Central Government’s highest law officers appear against me, and where the immediate family members of the Hon’ble Judge hold multiple live Central Government panel engagements and receive Government work through the same legal establishment and law officer, the apprehension becomes direct, grave and impossible for me to ignore”, it further added.

In his filing, the AAP leader shared several concerns that made him question the court's fairness. He pointed out that he wasn't allowed to respond to arguments against his recusal request and noted that the court stayed late—past normal hours—to finish the hearing. He also took issue with the court’s claim that he left early. Finally, he argued that while his request for a new judge was still pending, the court continued to make major decisions in the main case, such as setting a strict April 10 deadline for his legal response.
 

Also Read: Noida Protest Update: Unrest Spread to Sector 63, Over 300 Detained