New Delhi: Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal has filed an additional affidavit before the Delhi High Court in support of his recusal application, citing fresh material and raising serious concerns over an alleged “conflict of interest” in the ongoing proceedings.
In the affidavit, Kejriwal stated that he is fully aware of the facts of the case and competent to submit the document. He informed the court that after filing his initial recusal plea, certain material facts came to light on April 9, 2026, through publicly available information reported by a legal journalist. These developments, he said, prompted him to verify official records and place additional facts before the court.
According to the affidavit, Kejriwal claims that official records from the Department of Legal Affairs reveal that the son of the presiding judge, Ishaan Sharma, is empanelled by the Union Government as a Group ‘A’ Panel Counsel for the Supreme Court and has also held similar empanelment for government work in the Delhi High Court. He further stated that the judge’s daughter, Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, is also empanelled as a government pleader for the Delhi High Court and as a Group ‘C’ Panel Counsel for the Supreme Court.
Kejriwal argued that these are not honorary roles but continuing professional engagements with the Central Government, involving allocation of cases, financial benefits, and regular legal work. He cited a government notification dated September 13, 2022, which outlines the procedure for allocation of cases, stating that matters are assigned by the Attorney General and Solicitor General to panel counsel, including those in Groups ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’.
Referring to official FAQs published by the Ministry of Law and Justice, he reiterated that while the Attorney General selects cases for personal appearance in the Supreme Court, other matters are allocated by the Solicitor General to panel lawyers. He argued that in the present case, the Solicitor General is appearing for the CBI and opposing his plea, thereby raising concerns over institutional overlap.
The affidavit further states that this situation creates a “direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest,” as the same legal establishment representing the prosecution is also linked to the empanelment of immediate family members of the judge hearing the case.
Kejriwal also cited RTI-based information indicating substantial allocation of government legal work to the judge’s son over recent years. According to the affidavit, 2,487 cases were assigned in 2023, 1,784 cases in 2024, and 1,633 cases in 2025.
He emphasized that these facts demonstrate a continuing and substantial professional relationship with the Central Government, rather than a remote or incidental association.
Highlighting the political sensitivity of the case, Kejriwal stated that he is a principal political opponent of the ruling party at the Centre and is being prosecuted in that context. He referred to Supreme Court observations in his matter, noting that “perception matters” and that investigative agencies like the CBI must not only be fair but also be seen as fair, cautioning against the perception of being a “caged parrot.”
Kejriwal concluded that the newly discovered facts constitute a fresh and independent ground supporting his request for recusal, urging the court to consider the application in the interest of justice and maintaining public confidence in judicial impartiality.
