In a sharp response before the Delhi High Court, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) opposed applications filed by AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and other accused seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case.
The agency described the allegations of bias as unfounded and warned of serious consequences for the judicial system if such claims are accepted.
Background of the Case
The controversy arises from the CBI’s challenge to a trial court order discharging Kejriwal and others in the Delhi excise policy matter. During the proceedings, the accused sought recusal of Justice Sharma, citing alleged conflict of interest due to her children being empanelled as government counsel.
Kejriwal argued that since the Solicitor General appears for the CBI, the professional engagement of the judge’s children creates a “reasonable apprehension of bias.”
Rejecting the plea, the CBI submitted that neither of Justice Sharma’s children had any role in the excise policy case at any stage.
“The allegations are entirely baseless. Both are independent practitioners and have not assisted in this matter in any capacity,” the agency stated in its affidavit.
The CBI further argued that accepting such reasoning would create an unworkable precedent.
“The consequence would be that judges across the country would stand disqualified from hearing cases involving governments or public bodies merely because their relatives are on government panels,” it contended.
The agency also flagged what it termed a coordinated attempt to influence proceedings. It referred to an “orchestrated social media campaign” targeting the judge and linked it to selective dissemination of RTI-based information.
“This appears to be a premeditated effort to embarrass the court and pressurize the bench,” the affidavit said.
During the hearing, Kejriwal appeared and pressed for his additional affidavit to be taken on record, which the court allowed. The High Court had earlier reserved orders on the recusal applications.
The court also took note of circulation of hearing videos on social media and directed their removal, citing violation of court rules.
The matter is currently pending for orders before the Delhi High Court.
