AAP Supremo Arvind Kejriwal has filed an additional affidavit In his plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court from hearing the liquor policy case, stating that Justice Sharma's son and daughter are both empanelled as Central Government Counsel.
Kejriwal stated that Justice Sharma's children are allotted work by the Solicitor General of India, who appeared for the CBI before Justice Sharma. This, according to him, created a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of Justice Sharma, requiring her recusal from hearing CBI's plea against the discharge in the liquor policy case.
It may be recalled that on April 13, Justice Sharma had reserved orders on the applications filed by Kejriwal and other accused, seeking her recusal from hearing the revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the discharge of all the accused in the liquor policy case. During the hearing, Kejriwal, who argued the matter himself, had orally submitted that there was a social media discussion regarding the professional association of Justice Sharma's children with the Central Government. Kejriwal had submitted that as per established traditions, judges recused if their kin had associations with any of the parties appearing in the matter.
After the conclusion of the hearing, Kejriwal filed the present affidavit, stating that he got records showing the empanelment of Justice Sharma's children as Central Government Counsel. While her son is a Group A panel counsel for the Supreme Court, her daughter is a Group C Panel Counsel. He cited the materials brought to the public by legal reporter Saurav Das.
Kejriwal has said that since the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, is appearing for CBI opposing his discharge before Justice Sharma, the same gives rise to a direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest. He contended that the Solicitor General should have disclosed this association on the first date of the hearing itself.
“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 hearing the matter,” he has said.The affidavit also says that the “political context” materially sharpens the conflict and amplifies the apprehension.
Kejriwal has said that in a criminal case of such political nature, where the prosecuting agency is the CBI, where the Central Government's highest law officers appear against him, and where the immediate family members of the Judge hold multiple live Central Government panel engagements and receive Government work through the same legal establishment and law officer, the apprehension becomes direct, grave and impossible o ignore.
However, he also clarified that he was not alleging actual bias, nor he was attributing any improper motive to the Court, but was only saying that the circumstances create a real, objective and reasonable apprehension in his mind that the proceedings may not carry the full appearance of judicial detachment, independence and neutrality that the law requires.Kejriwal also stated that he has not got adequate opportunity to respond to the arguments of the CBI.
Follow us
