Kejriwal seeks recusal of Justice Sharma: Attending Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad event not ideological bias, CBI tells HC
Seeking Justice Sharma's recusal citing past instances of alleged bias, the six have cited the judge’s “alleged likelihood of ideological association with ABAP”. The ABAP, a lawyers’ body, is considered to be an affiliate of RSS.
If attending a function of Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP) shows ideological bias of any judge, then a large number of sitting High Court and Supreme Court judges would have to recuse from hearing any case in which politically exposed persons are accused, the CBI has told the Delhi High Court on Wednesday while opposing a request moved by AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal and five others, seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi HC from hearing the liquor excise policy case.
The former Delhi CM, his deputy Manish Sisodia, AAP’s former communication in-charge Vijay Nair, former AAP MLA Durgesh Pathak, businessman Arun Pillai and AAP volunteer Chanpreet Singh Rayat had moved applications on April 6, seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal from hearing the CBI’s petition — filed last month — that has sought setting aside of a February order of a trial court that had discharged 23 accused in the case.
Kejriwal, on April 6, had told HC that he will be arguing the recusal application as party-in-person.
Seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal citing past instances of alleged bias, the six have cited the judge’s “alleged likelihood of ideological association with ABAP”. The ABAP, a lawyers’ body, is considered to be an affiliate of RSS.
The ABAP programmes attended by Justice Sharma included events where topics such as ’75 years of Resurgent Bharat: Changing Contours of Law and Justice’ and ‘Challenges and Opportunities for Women Advocates in the Legal Arena’ were discussed. She had also attended a study circle on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Opposing the recusal applications, the CBI, in its affidavit filed on April 7, has said, “Attending a legal seminar can never be a ground for recusal when the topic of the seminar was not a political one therefore it does not demonstrate any ideological association”. It termed such “unscrupulous and sweeping” aspersions by the six to attribute the judge’s bias, as contemptuous.
Further, the CBI has pointed out that Justice Sharma has in fact extended the benefit of interim bail to Pillai on three occasions. “Passing of both favourable and unfavourable orders to the accused/applicant itself shows that there cannot be any apprehension of bias whatsoever… The fact that a judge has taken a judicial view in certain proceedings does not mean that that Judge cannot hear subsequent cases between same parties,” it added.
Story continues below this ad
The CBI has also countered that the judge has not been hasty with the hearing so far, even granting an interim ex-parte stay on the adverse observations made against the agency’s investigating officer by the trial court.
The CBI has said that there is a Supreme Court-issued mandate to hear MP/MLA cases expeditiously, and all similar matters are being heard in “expeditious manner uniformly”. Citing an example, it has said that in a case concerning former RJD MP Lalu Prasad Yadav and his family hearings, “27 hearings have taken place in the case in less than three months, demonstrating that MP/MLA cases are being heard in an expeditious manner uniformly”.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
