Former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal has filed an additional affidavit before the Delhi High Court, raising two fresh grounds to seek the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s revision plea against his discharge in the excise policy case.In the fresh plea, Kejriwal has alleged a conflict of interest, pointing to the empanelment of the judge’s children as Central government counsel, and claimed he was denied a fair hearing when proceedings in the matter were rushed beyond normal court hours.The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener has alleged, in the affidavit filed on April 14, a “direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest”, pointing out that Justice Sharma’s son and daughter are empanelled as panel counsel for the Union of India. Panel counsel are private advocates appointed by a government to a roster to represent it in legal matters.Kejriwal claimed that official records show the judge’s son, Ishaan Sharma, is a Group ‘A’ Panel Counsel for the Supreme Court, while her daughter, Shambhavi Sharma, is a government pleader for the Delhi High Court and a Group ‘C’ Panel Counsel for the apex court. Kejriwal pointed out that the allocation of cases to these panel counsel is overseen by the Solicitor General of India, who is representing the CBI and opposing Kejriwal’s recusal in the present case.Citing data procured through the Right to Information Act, the affidavit noted a “substantial allocation of Central Government’s legal work” to Justice Sharma’s son, amounting to over 5,500 cases between 2023 and 2025.“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,” the affidavit stated.Kejriwal emphasised that in a “politically sensitive prosecution” involving a “principal political opponent of the ruling party”, “the apprehension becomes direct, grave and impossible for me to ignore.”Story continues below this adThe second ground for recusal stems from the proceedings on Monday, when Kejriwal argued his application in person. He stated that after concluding his submissions, he sought permission to leave the court at about 3.45 pm. At that point, the affidavit noted, he had “no reason to expect that the matter would continue substantially beyond normal court hours.”However, CBI’s submissions continued until after 6.15 pm, and the proceedings were concluded beyond 7 pm the same day, before Justice Sharma reserved her order. Kejriwal claimed that he expected to be granted a reasonable time, perhaps the next day, to prepare a rejoinder, a legal response to CBI’s counter-arguments. The continuation and conclusion of proceedings beyond ordinary court hours, he argued, effectively denied him a “fair and reasonable opportunity” to advance his rejoinder.Kejriwal has also objected to the court passing “effective orders in the main matter” – such as directing that the right to file a reply would stand closed if not done within a week – while the recusal application was still pending.“I respectfully submit that judicial propriety required that, while the issue of recusal was still awaiting decision, no such effective or coercive procedural orders affecting the substantive rights of parties ought to have been passed,” he stated, adding that this gave the impression that the matter continuing before the same bench was a “foregone course.”Story continues below this adKejriwal clarified in his affidavit that he is not attributing any “improper motive” or alleging “actual bias” against the court. Instead, he argued that the law only requires circumstances where a fair-minded litigant can reasonably apprehend that justice may not appear to be done.The recusal application is part of the ongoing proceedings in which the CBI has challenged a trial court’s February 27 order discharging Kejriwal and 22 others in the alleged liquor policy scam.In his initial recusal plea, Kejriwal had cited an apprehension of bias on political lines and based on social media posts. He had also argued that an analysis of the judge’s past orders showed a trend of “endorsing” the investigating agencies’ arguments, and that her court was expeditiously taking up only two cases involving MPs and MLAs – one being his and the other involving a political opponent of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).During earlier hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had strongly opposed the recusal request, terming the allegations “frivolous, vexatious and contemptuous” and dismissing Kejriwal’s decision to argue in person as “theatrics.”