Arvind Kejriwal Again Demands Recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in Delhi Liquor Scam Case: What Did He Say This Time?
Arvind Kejriwal has once again demanded the recusal of Delhi High Court's Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who is presiding over the Delhi liquor scam case. The former Chief Minister of Delhi has filed a fresh affidavit in the Delhi High Court in this regard.
In this affidavit, Kejriwal has raised the issue of the Judge's two children working with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. Kejriwal argued that since the Judge's children work with the Solicitor General, how could she possibly pass orders against him?
Earlier, during a hearing on April 13, Kejriwal had stated that Justice Sharma had attended events organized by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad—an organization affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)—on four separate occasions. Consequently, he argued that she should be removed from the case.
In the new affidavit, Kejriwal has highlighted the fact that Justice Sharma's children serve as panel lawyers for the Central Government. Legal briefs are assigned to them by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
Notably, Tushar Mehta is the very counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the excise policy case. The affidavit asserts that this creates a "direct and serious apprehension of a conflict of interest."
Kejriwal has cited certain documents obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. According to these documents, the Judge's son was assigned a substantial volume of legal work during the period spanning 2023–2025. Kejriwal contends that these facts should have been disclosed by the Solicitor General on the very first date of the hearing, rather than being left to be uncovered by legal journalists or through social media.
Kejriwal raised another significant point
AAP Convener Kejriwal has raised another significant point in the affidavit. He has submitted that even while his application for "recusal" (seeking the Judge's withdrawal from the case) was still pending, the Court proceeded to pass substantive orders in the main matter.
Kejriwal maintains that, in accordance with judicial propriety, no punitive or substantive order should have been issued until a decision was reached regarding the application for recusal. This has further deepened his apprehension that the case is proceeding in a predetermined direction.
At the conclusion of his affidavit, Kejriwal clarified that while he might not have taken such a stance in an ordinary private dispute, it is impossible for him to overlook the grounds for mistrust in the present case—where the Union Government's highest legal officer is appearing before the Judge, and members of the Judge's family are beneficiaries of the very same system. He has once again appealed to Justice Sharma to recuse herself from hearing this sensitive matter.
Kejriwal, others were acquitted on Feb 27
On February 27, the Trial Court acquitted Kejriwal and 22 other accused persons in the Excise Policy case. This order was challenged by the CBI, and the appeal is currently being heard by Justice Sharma.
On March 9, Justice Sharma issued a notice and stayed that specific portion of the order which had directed departmental action against the Investigating Officer.
She also observed, *prima facie*, that certain remarks made by the Trial Court were erroneous and directed the Trial Court to defer the proceedings under the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act).
Subsequently, Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai, and Chanpreet Singh Rayat filed an application seeking the recusal of Justice Sharma.