“I state that the official public records of the Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India, disclose that Mr Ishaan Sharma, son of Hon’ble Justice is empanelled by the Central Government-Union of India as Group ‘A’ Panel Counsel for the Supreme Court of India. The same official records further show that he has also held empanelment for Central Government work before the High Court of Delhi. I further state that the official records disclose that Ms Shambhavi Sharma, daughter of Hon’ble Justice, is empanelled by the Union of India as Govt Pleader for the High Court of Delhi and is also shown as Group ‘C’ Panel Counsel for the Supreme Court of India,” the affidavit by Arvind Kejriwal, dated April 14, said.
The affidavit, a copy of which is with The Indian Express, places on record what Kejriwal describes as “subsequently discovered facts” based on official government records, notifications and material gathered under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which he claims strengthen his recusal plea filed earlier.
Arvind Kejriwal submitted that Justice Sharma’s daughter, Shambhavi Sharma, is empanelled as a government pleader for the Delhi High Court and is also listed as a Group ‘C’ panel counsel for the Supreme Court. (Image enhanced using AI)
‘Not honorary positions’
Kejriwal stated that official records of the Department of Legal Affairs show that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s son, Ishaan Sharma, is empanelled by the Centre as a Group ‘A’ panel counsel for the Supreme Court and has also been engaged for central government work before the Delhi High Court.
He further submitted that Justice Sharma’s daughter, Shambhavi Sharma, is empanelled as a government pleader for the Delhi High Court and is also listed as a Group ‘C’ panel counsel for the Supreme Court.
According to the affidavit, these are not honorary positions but continuing professional engagements involving allocation of government work, court appearances and financial benefits.
Story continues below this ad
Link to solicitor general’s role
The affidavit relies on a 2022 notification of the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to argue that the Solicitor General of India plays a key role in the allocation of cases to panel counsel in the Supreme Court. It also cites a government FAQ to assert that cases are marked to panel counsel through the office of the solicitor general.
Arvind Kejriwal pointed out that in the present case, the solicitor general is appearing for the CBI and opposing his plea. Since the same law officer is part of the institutional mechanism that allocates work to the judge’s family members, he argued that this creates a “direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest.”
RTI data cited on case allocation
Referring to RTI material, Kejriwal claimed that a substantial number of cases have been allotted to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s son in recent years.
The affidavit mentions that 2,487 cases were marked to him in 2023, as many as 1,784 cases in 2024 and 1,633 cases in 2025. These figures, Arvind Kejriwal argued, demonstrate that the professional relationship with the central government is “live, continuing and substantial, and not remote or incidental.”
Story continues below this ad
Political context highlighted
Kejriwal emphasised that the matter is a politically sensitive criminal prosecution in which he is a principal opposition leader facing investigation by a central agency. He cited the Supreme Court’s observation that investigative agencies must not only be fair but also be seen to be fair, invoking the phrase “caged parrot” in reference to the CBI.
He argued that in such a context, even a perception of conflict assumes greater significance and deepens the apprehension of bias.
No allegation of actual bias, but apprehension stressed
The affidavit clarifies that Arvind Kejriwal is not alleging actual bias or imputing improper motives to the court. Instead, he contends that the circumstances create a reasonable apprehension that judicial proceedings may not carry the full appearance of independence and neutrality required by law.
He said that the legal standard does not require proof of actual influence, but only that a fair-minded litigant could reasonably perceive that justice may not appear to be done.
Story continues below this ad
Concerns over hearing procedure
Arvind Kejriwal also raised procedural concerns regarding the hearing of his recusal application. He stated that after he concluded his arguments and left the court around 3.45 pm, proceedings continued beyond normal court hours, with submissions by the CBI extending past 6.15 pm, and reportedly concluding after 7 pm.
He claimed that he was denied a fair opportunity to present rejoinder arguments and that the continuation of proceedings in his absence aggravated his apprehensions. Further, he alleged that while the recusal application was still pending, the court passed effective orders in the main matter, including directions affecting the rights of parties, which he argued was improper.
Prayer for recusal
In conclusion, Arvind Kejriwal submitted that the cumulative circumstances, including the empanelment of the judge’s family members, the role of the solicitor general, the allocation of government work, and the manner of proceedings, give rise to a “direct and immediate” appearance of conflict of interest.
Arvind Kejriwal urged that, in the interest of justice and maintaining public confidence in judicial impartiality, the matter should not be heard further by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
Story continues below this ad
Delhi High Court takes Kejriwal’s affidavit on record
On Thursday, the Delhi High Court took on record an additional affidavit by Arvind Kejriwal, highlighting a “conflict of interest” in the empanelment of Justice Sharma’s children as Central government counsels.
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, Arvind Kejriwal requested the court to take his additional affidavit on its record.
The CBI has also filed its written submissions, specifically addressing the conflict of interest issue regarding Justice Sharma, as raised by Arvind Kejriwal, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the agency, stated in court.
Arvind Kejriwal submitted that Justice Sharma’s daughter, Shambhavi Sharma, is empanelled as a government pleader for the Delhi High Court and is also listed as a Group ‘C’ panel counsel for the Supreme Court. (Image enhanced using AI)