Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma news: Arvind Kejriwal has filed an additional affidavit before the Delhi High Court, stating that the son and daughter of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma are empanelled as central government counsel.“I state that the official public records of the Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India, disclose that Mr. Ishaan Sharma, son of Hon’ble Justice is empanelled by the Central Government-Union of India as Group ‘A’ Panel Counsel for the Supreme Court of India. The same official records further show that he has also held empanelment for Central Government work before the High Court of Delhi. I further state that the official records disclose that Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, daughter of Hon’ble Justice, is empanelled by the Union of India as Govt. Pleader for the High Court of Delhi and is also shown as Group ‘C’ Panel Counsel for the Supreme Court of India,” the affidavit by the former Delhi chief minister dated April 14 said.He further submitted that they received work assignments from the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who had appeared for the CBI in proceedings before Justice Sharma.On this basis, Kejriwal argued that a reasonable apprehension of bias arises, warranting Justice Sharma’s recusal from hearing the CBI’s plea challenging his discharge in the liquor policy case.The affidavit, a copy of which is with The Indian Express, filed on April 14 places on record what Kejriwal describes as “subsequently discovered facts” based on official government records, notifications and RTI material, which he claims strengthen his earlier recusal plea. Empanelment of judge’s family members citedKejriwal stated that official records of the department of legal affairs show that Justice Sharma’s son, Ishaan Sharma, is empanelled by the central government as a Group ‘A’ panel counsel for the Supreme Court and has also been engaged for central government work before the Delhi High Court.He further submitted that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s daughter, Shambhavi Sharma, is empanelled as a government pleader for the Delhi High Court and is also listed as a Group ‘C’ panel counsel for the Supreme Court.Story continues below this adAccording to the affidavit, these are not honorary positions but continuing professional engagements involving allocation of government work, court appearances and financial benefits.Link to solicitor general’s roleThe affidavit relies on a 2022 notification of the union ministry of law and justice to argue that the solicitor general of India plays a key role in allocation of cases to panel counsel in the Supreme Court. It also cites a government FAQ to assert that cases are marked to panel counsel through the office of the solicitor general.Kejriwal pointed out that in the present case, the solicitor general is appearing for the CBI and opposing his plea. Since the same law officer is part of the institutional mechanism that allocates work to the judge’s family members, he argued that this creates a “direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest.”RTI data cited on case allocationReferring to RTI material, Kejriwal claimed that a substantial number of cases have been allotted to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s son over recent years.Story continues below this adThe affidavit mentions that 2,487 cases were marked to him in 2023, 1,784 in 2024 and 1,633 in 2025.These figures, Kejriwal argued, demonstrate that the professional relationship with the central government is “live, continuing and substantial, and not remote or incidental.”Political context highlightedKejriwal emphasised that the matter is a politically sensitive criminal prosecution in which he is a principal opposition leader facing investigation by a central agency. He cited the Supreme Court’s observation that investigative agencies must not only be fair but also be seen to be fair, invoking the phrase “caged parrot” in reference to the CBI.He argued that in such a context, even a perception of conflict assumes greater significance and deepens the apprehension of bias.No allegation of actual bias, but apprehension stressedThe affidavit clarifies that Kejriwal is not alleging actual bias or imputing improper motives to the court. Instead, he contends that the circumstances create a reasonable apprehension that judicial proceedings may not carry the full appearance of independence and neutrality required by law.Story continues below this adHe said that the legal standard does not require proof of actual influence, but only that a fair-minded litigant could reasonably perceive that justice may not appear to be done.Concerns over hearing procedureKejriwal also raised procedural concerns regarding the hearing of his recusal application. He stated that after he concluded his arguments and left court around 3:45pm, proceedings continued beyond normal court hours, with submissions by the CBI extending past 6:15pm and reportedly concluding after 7pm.He claimed that he was denied a fair opportunity to present rejoinder arguments and that the continuation of proceedings in his absence aggravated his apprehensions.Further, he alleged that while the recusal application was still pending, the court passed effective orders in the main matter, including directions affecting the rights of parties, which he argued was improper.Story continues below this adPrayer for recusalIn conclusion, Kejriwal submitted that the cumulative circumstances including the empanelment of the judge’s family members, the role of the solicitor general, the allocation of government work, and the manner of proceedings give rise to a “direct and immediate” appearance of conflict of interest.He urged that, in the interest of justice and maintaining public confidence in judicial impartiality, the matter should not be heard further by Justice Sharma.