Delhi HC takes on record Arvind Kejriwal’s ‘conflict of interest’ charge against judge citing her family ties to Centre
The court of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma took on record Arvind Kejriwal's additional affidavit, but will not reopen the hearing since the matter regarding her recusal has already been reserved for a verdict.
The court of Justice Sharma, however, clarified that it will not reopen the hearing since the matter of several of the 23 accused in the liquor policy case seeking her recusal from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s plea challenging a trial court’s discharge of them has already been reserved for a verdict.
Appearing as party-in-person through video conference before Justice Sharma on Thursday, Kejriwal requested the court to take his additional affidavit on its record.
The CBI will also file its written submissions, specifically addressing the conflict of interest issue regarding Justice Sharma, as raised by Kejriwal, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the agency, stated in court.
Kejriwal, in his additional affidavit filed on April 14, alleged 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 Central government. Panel counsel are private advocates appointed by a government to a roster to represent it in legal matters.
Kejriwal, in the affidavit, claimed that official records show the judge’s sonIshaan 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 obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Kejriwal pointed out “substantial allocation of Central Government’s legal work” to Justice Sharma’s son, amounting to over 5,500 cases between 2023 and 2025.
Story continues below this ad
“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,” Kejriwal stated.
He 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”.
While clarifying that he is not attributing any “improper motive” or alleging “actual bias” against the court, Kejriwal has argued that the law only requires circumstances where a fair-minded litigant can reasonably apprehend that justice may not appear to be done.
Among the grounds of Kejriwal seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal from hearing the CBI’s plea, Kejriwal, on April 13, also told the court that Justice Sharma attended some programmes organised by Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Parishad “which follows a particular ideology which is opposite to his party’s ideology and which he openly opposes it which is giving rise to apprehension in his mind and giving rise to a doubt.”
Story continues below this ad
The court, after a marathon hearing of over four hours on April 13, reserved judgment on the recusal applications filed by Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, former MLA Durgesh Pathak, AAP’s former communications-in-charge Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai, and Rajesh Joshi.
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
