Excise policy case: Kejriwal cites judge’s family ties to Centre, ‘rushed’ hearing to seek Justice Sharma’s recusal from hearing CBI plea

Panel counsels 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 HC and a Group ‘C’ Panel Counsel for the SC. He 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 plea in the current case.

Citing data procured under 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… 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”.

The second ground stems from Monday’s proceedings, when Kejriwal argued his application in person. He said that after concluding his submissions, he sought permission to leave the court around 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, the CBI’s submissions, he claimed, continued until after 6.15 pm, and the proceedings were concluded beyond 7 pm, before Justice Sharma reserved her order.

Kejriwal claimed that he expected to be granted reasonable time, perhaps the next day, to prepare a rejoinder. The continuation and conclusion of proceedings beyond ordinary court hours, he argued, effectively denied him a “fair and reasonable opportunity” to advance his rejoinder.

He 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 his application seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal was still pending. “…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 said, adding that this gave the impression that the matter was a “foregone course”.

Kejriwal clarified 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 where 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 plea seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal, 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 BJP.

During earlier hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had opposed the recusal request, terming the allegations “frivolous, vexatious and contemptuous” and dismissing Kejriwal’s decision to argue in person as “theatrics”.