The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a response on Thursday in the Delhi High Court addressing the fresh affidavit submitted by AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal under his recusal plea in the liquor policy case.
The CBI has not disputed any of the key facts presented by Kejriwal but contends there is no conflict of interest, according to a release.
Kejriwal had earlier appeared before the Delhi High Court and filed an additional affidavit highlighting that both children of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma are included on the Union Government panel. The affidavit also stated that Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI in the case, assigns them cases classified as paid matters. It further noted that the son has been assigned over 5,500 cases since his empanelment in 2022, an unusually high number for a young lawyer, and that this empanelment and assignment coincide with Justice Sharma’s tenure as a High Court Judge. These facts, the affidavit stated, create a reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of a litigant.
In its response, the CBI did not dispute that both children of Justice Sharma are on the Union Government panel or that Solicitor General Mehta assigns them paid matters. It also did not challenge the fact that the son has been assigned over 5,500 cases since 2022 or that this coincides with Justice Sharma’s tenure. The CBI maintained that this does not constitute a conflict of interest and argued that accepting such an argument would disqualify judges whose relatives are empanelled with governments or public sector undertakings from hearing related cases.
The AAP responded, stating, “If this is not a conflict of interest, what is? The CBI said this is not a conflict of interest. Is this how business is done in the country? These are not abstract concerns. These are clear facts on record that raise serious questions about fairness and institutional integrity.” The party emphasised that the issue is not empanelment itself but the fact that the same Solicitor General appearing in the case is assigning thousands of paid matters to the judge’s immediate family.
“This is not about all judges. This is about one case with specific, undisputed facts. When over 5,500 cases are marked by the same law officer arguing the case, it is not routine. Calling this normal raises serious questions,” they added.