CBI Firmly Opposes Kejriwal's Recusal Plea, Warns of Judicial Paralysis in Delhi Excise Case

In a strongly worded affidavit filed before the Delhi High Court, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has rebuffed applications by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal and co-accused seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the agency's revision petition challenging their discharge in the high-profile Delhi excise policy scam. The CBI contends that accepting Kejriwal's grounds for bias—primarily the empanelment of Justice Sharma's children as Union government panel counsel—would lead to an absurd scenario where "all learned Judges throughout the country" are disqualified from government-related matters, severely undermining judicial functionality. This development underscores escalating tensions between political litigants and the judiciary, raising critical questions about recusal standards, social media's role in litigation, and the preservation of institutional integrity.

Background: The Delhi Excise Policy Saga

The controversy stems from the CBI's probe into alleged irregularities in the Delhi government's now-scrapped excise policy for 2021-22, which purportedly favored private liquor vendors through kickbacks and policy manipulations. In February 2024, a trial court discharged Kejriwal, former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, and 21 other accused, citing insufficient evidence of conspiracy. The CBI swiftly challenged this order via a revision petition before the Delhi High Court, where it was assigned to Justice Sharma per roster.

On April 6, 2024, Justice Sharma issued notice on the CBI plea, stayed certain trial court directions against the investigating officer, and made prima facie observations questioning the discharge rationale. This prompted recusal applications from Kejriwal and others, alleging bias from the judge's observations, external associations, and—later—familial ties. The matter is now pending orders on recusal, with hearings marked by procedural flashpoints, including the viral circulation of courtroom videos that the court ordered removed for violating recording prohibitions.

Kejriwal's Grounds for Recusal: Family Ties and Ideological Links

Kejriwal, appearing in person via video conferencing, amplified his plea through an additional affidavit filed on April 14, 2024, taken on record by Justice Sharma. He highlighted a "direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest," noting that Justice Sharma's son, Ishaan Sharma, is a Group 'A' panel counsel for the Supreme Court, and her daughter, Shambhavi Sharma, serves as a government pleader for the Delhi High Court and Group 'C' panel counsel for the Supreme Court. Kejriwal alleged these empanelments, with work assigned by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (appearing for CBI), create reasonable apprehension of bias, especially as Ishaan Sharma has handled over 5,500 matters since 2022.

Additionally, Kejriwal cited Justice Sharma's attendance at events organized by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP) on April 13, portraying it as an organization with a "particular ideology" aligned against AAP. He argued this, combined with adverse observations, warranted recusal to uphold fairness. AAP later asserted that CBI did not dispute the facts, questioning, "If this is not a conflict of interest, what is?"

CBI's Counterarguments: Slippery Slope and No Actual Conflict

The CBI's response dismantles these claims methodically. It clarifies that neither child "ever dealt with or even assisted anyone in any of the matters pertaining to the present offence before any court... or have been involved in the matter in any capacity whatsoever." Both are independent practitioners, not attached to seniors, with Ishaan empanelled since 2022—not recently as alleged.

Most strikingly, the CBI extrapolates Kejriwal's logic to its extreme: "All learned Judges throughout the country will be disqualified to hear matters pertaining to such Government/s or matters of any political leader - small or big if their relatives are on any government panel of Central Government or State Government." It further warns, "Extending the logic of Shri Kejriwal further, all Honble Judges whose relatives are on the panel of either state government or central government or any Public Sector Undertaking will be disqualified from hearing the cases of the respective state governments, central government, or the concerned PSUs."

On the ABAP event, CBI retorts that such participation is routine for judges attending bar association seminars on "purely legal issues," and acceptance would disqualify judges from all Kejriwal matters. Labeling the affidavit an "afterthought to further malign the institution," CBI accuses Kejriwal of prior knowledge via an RTI response on March 18, only publicizing it post-April 6 order.

Allegations of Orchestrated Social Media Pressure

A pivotal CBI contention is an "orchestrated social media campaign" targeting Justice Sharma since April 9. It traces a sequence: an RTI filed February 11 by a non-party, responded March 18; a tweet post-April 6 order "disclosing" details, retweeted by Kejriwal and AAP leaders "in tandem." The agency decries "selective, premeditated, and vitriolic" tweets with "misinformation" to "embarrass this bench or to bring pressure upon the bench."

CBI urges a firm judicial message: "It is a high time that a message goes… that unscrupulous persons… cannot embarrass, malign, and thereby pressurize any judge." It warns against "unholy, unhealthy and anarchist practices," emphasizing that succumbing would expose every judge to such tactics, hindering fearless adjudication.

Recent Court Proceedings and Procedural Notes

During Thursday's hearing, Justice Sharma permitted Kejriwal's affidavit but clarified no reopening of hearings, as orders on most recusal pleas stand reserved. Post-hearing videos went viral, prompting takedown orders. CBI maintains neutrality on the bench but insists on opposing pressure as a national agency duty.

Legal Analysis: Recusal Principles Under Scrutiny

Recusal hinges on the "reasonable apprehension of bias" test, articulated in precedents like Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987), where the focus is on a fair-minded observer's perception—not subjective litigant fears. Courts demand concrete links, not remote familial professions. Here, CBI rightly notes no direct involvement, aligning with State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak (limiting recusal to actual prejudice).

Kejriwal's SG assignment claim falters without evidence of influence, as panel counsel assist variably. ABAP attendance lacks ideological proof. This echoes concerns in R (on the application of Sudesh Amba) v. General Medical Council on fanciful bias pleas. Legally, CBI's slippery slope argument prevails, preventing recusal abuse.

Broader Implications for Legal Practice and Judiciary

This case spotlights vulnerabilities in the digital age: social media amplification of RTIs could routine-ize judge-shopping. For legal professionals, it signals stricter scrutiny of recusal affidavits, potential contempt actions for campaigns, and need for transparent empanelment disclosures. Politicians facing probes may test limits, but courts risk roster disruptions if thresholds lower.

Impacts extend to PSUs/states: disqualifying judges with relative-counsel would cripple dockets. Reinforces judicial independence per Article 50 (separation from executive). AAP's retort highlights optics, but CBI's stand protects the institution, urging guidelines on family empanelments.

Reactions and Pending Orders

AAP insists undisputed facts prove conflict, but CBI prioritizes precedent over perception. Matter awaits Delhi HC orders, potentially shaping recusal jurisprudence amid excise probe's political heat.

In sum, CBI's opposition fortifies judicial resilience against innovative pressures, reminding that integrity trumps apprehension. Legal observers await if Justice Sharma recuses or proceeds, setting tone for similar battles.