Back
Kejriwal Cites Judge's Children in Delhi HC Recusal Bid
In a dramatic escalation of his legal battle against central agencies, former Delhi Chief Minister and
(
) leader Arvind Kejriwal has filed a fresh affidavit before the
, naming the son and daughter of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma as empanelled Central government counsel. The
affidavit bolsters Kejriwal's plea for the judge's recusal from the
's (
) revision petition challenging his discharge in the high-profile Delhi excise policy case. Citing
(RTI) disclosures and official records, Kejriwal argues these family ties create a
"
,"
especially since
—who oversees case allocations to such panel counsel—appeared for the
opposing the recusal. Additionally, Kejriwal alleges procedural lapses, claiming he was denied a fair opportunity for rejoinder submissions after leaving court early. This move underscores mounting concerns over judicial impartiality in politically charged prosecutions.
Background: The Excise Policy Case and Initial Recusal Plea
The controversy stems from the alleged Delhi excise policy scam, a investigation accusing leaders of irregularities in liquor licensing that allegedly favored private players through kickbacks. A trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 others on , prompting the to file a revision plea before Justice Sharma in the . Kejriwal, appearing in person, initially sought recusal citing apprehensions of political bias: Justice Sharma's attendance at four ( ) legal wing events, a pattern in her orders favoring investigative agencies, and her court prioritizing cases involving rivals and opponents.
These grounds drew sharp rebuke from , who termed the plea " ," dismissing Kejriwal's self-representation as "theatrics." The fresh affidavit introduces "subsequently discovered facts" from RTI responses and public records released on , reportedly first highlighted by legal journalist Saurav Dass, shifting focus from overt political links to institutional conflicts via family professional engagements.
New Allegations: Judge's Children as Central Government Panel Counsel
Kejriwal's affidavit meticulously documents the empanelments, emphasizing they are not honorary but
"continuing professional engagements involving allocation of government work, court appearances, and financial benefits."
Official records from the
reveal:
- (son): Empanelled as Group 'A' Panel Counsel for the ; previously held empanelment for Central government work before the .
- (daughter): Empanelled as Government Pleader for the and Group 'C' Panel Counsel for the Supreme Court.
"I state that the official public records of the
, Government of India, disclose that Mr
, son of Hon’ble Justice is empanelled by the Central Government-Union of India as Group ‘A’ Panel Counsel for the
. The same official records further show that he has also held empanelment for Central Government work before the
,"
the affidavit states verbatim.
Panel counsel are private advocates selected by government bodies to handle litigation on defined terms and fees, adding them to approved rosters.
RTI Revelations and Solicitor General's Role
RTI data procured on provides quantitative heft: received 2,487 cases in , 1,784 in , and 1,633 in —totaling over 5,900 matters, described as a "live, continuing and substantial" relationship with the Centre, not "remote or incidental."
Kejriwal links this to the proceedings: A notification and government FAQs confirm the Solicitor General's office allocates Supreme Court cases to panel counsel, including Groups 'A' and 'C'. With Tushar Mehta arguing for before Justice Sharma, Kejriwal contends: “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.”
This, he argues, fosters a , where a fair-minded litigant might perceive the proceedings lacking full independence.
Procedural Grievances: Denied Rejoinder Opportunity
Compounding the conflict claims, Kejriwal objects to the hearing's conduct. Appearing pro se, he concluded arguments and sought permission to leave at 3:45 PM, unaware proceedings would extend beyond 7 PM. submissions continued past 6:15 PM, concluding the same day without his rejoinder.
"In the ordinary course, and particularly since I was appearing as party-in-person, it was reasonable for me to expect that some reasonable time [even can be the next day itself] and opportunity to address would be granted to me thereafter to prepare and address rejoinder submissions, especially in a matter of this gravity,"
the affidavit asserts. He further protests
"effective orders in the main matter"
—like closing reply filing within a week—issued while recusal pended, implying the bench's continuance was predetermined and violating judicial propriety.
Legal Framework for Judicial Recusal
Indian courts apply an objective test for recusal, drawn from UK precedents like and adapted post- : Whether a would conclude there exists a . Actual bias need not be proven; mere apprehension suffices if it appears justice might not be done. The Supreme Court in emphasized investigative agencies must not only be fair but appear fair, invoking the " " critique of 's autonomy.
Kejriwal clarifies no "improper motive" or actual bias is alleged, aligning with this threshold. In politically sensitive cases involving opposition leaders, such perceptions carry amplified weight, as public confidence in judiciary is paramount.
Analysis: Apprehension of Bias in Politically Charged Prosecutions
This affidavit elevates the discourse beyond ad hominem political accusations to systemic issues. Empanelments for judges' kin are not uncommon, but their scale—thousands of cases via the same mechanism opposing the litigant—uniquely spotlights potential influence, even indirect. Kejriwal, as
"principal political opponent of the ruling party at the Centre,"
frames it as deepening bias fears in a "politically sensitive criminal prosecution."
Critics may view it as forum-shopping, but legally, it invokes natural justice principles under , including (hear the other side). The procedural rush raises due process red flags, potentially appealable. Comparatively, in , recusal was granted over familial financial ties; here, professional continuity parallels that.
Broader Implications for Judicial Ethics and Practice
For legal professionals, this spotlights evolving norms: Should judges disclose relatives' empanelments? The affidavit critiques the Solicitor General's silence on day one, urging institutional transparency over social media exposés. RTI's weaponization could spur more such probes, pressuring panel allocations.
Impacts ripple: Panel lawyers (often young advocates) face scrutiny; judges, work-life separation dilemmas. It may prompt guidelines akin to US federal judge disclosures or India's expansions. In high-stakes probes, it tests 's image, reinforcing calls for prosecutorial independence. Ultimately, it safeguards public trust, vital for democracy.
Conclusion: A Test for Judicial Impartiality
Justice Sharma's order on recusal looms large, potentially shaping precedents on family-professional conflicts. Irrespective of outcome, Kejriwal's affidavit compels reflection on balancing judicial kin's careers with impartiality's optics. In an era of polarized politics, upholding the "appearance of justice" remains judiciary's north star, ensuring even perceptions of bias do not erode its sanctity.
