The CBI on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that the neither of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s two children – who are empanelled as Union government counsels – “ever dealt with or even assisted anyone in any of the matters pertaining” to the excise policy case “before any court in past at any stage of proceedings” and have been “involved in the matter in any capacity whatsoever”.
The central agency said so while opposing AAP national convener Arvind Kerjiwal’s application seeking recusal of Justice Sharma from hearing a CBI plea challenging the discharge of 23 accused in the case.
It said that if Kejriwal’s reasons for requesting recusal is to be accepted, “all learned judges throughout the country will be disqualified to hear matters pertaining to such government/s or matters of any political leader – small or big if their relatives are on government panel of Central government or state government”.
Kejriwal, highlighting “conflict of interest” owing to Justice Sharma’s children serving as government panel counsels, in his additional affidavit, has cited the same as one of the many reasons why he apprehends bias by Justice Sharma.
The CBI, however, termed Kejriwal’s allegation as an “afterthought to further malign the institution and the individuals”. “Extending the logic of Kejriwal further, all… judges whose relatives are on the panel of either state government or Central government or any public sector undertaking will be disqualified from hearing the cases of the respective state governments, Central government, or the concerned PSUs,” it added.
On Thursday, appearing as party-in-person virtually, Kejriwal requested Justice Sharma to take his additional affidavit on the court’s record. While permitting the same, Justice Sharma clarified that she will not “reopen the hearing” since the plea of many of the 23 accused — who are seeking her recusal from hearing the CBI’s plea challenging a trial court that had discharged them — has already been reserved for a verdict.
The CBI also flagged in its submissions that since April 9, “there is a very selective, premeditated, and vitriolic online campaign designedly launched by tweeting and retweeting the same misinformation making wild insinuations regarding the government panel work with the sole purpose of either embarrassing this bench or to bring pressure upon the bench”. It added that if Justice Sharma decides to recuse herself on “such grounds”, “it would set a very wrong precedent and would encourage unscrupulous litigants to pressurise all Judges, embarrass them, malign them and get the matter shifted to another bench”.
Story continues below this ad
Submitting that while CBI is not opposed to whether the matter is heard by Justice Sharma or by any other bench, it added that if, as a central investigating agency, it does not take a stand and “if the bench also succumbs to such pressurising tactics, it would become a very sad and unhealthy precedent whereby every Judge would be exposed to such orchestrated pressure tactics and maligning campaigns, which may result in a strong hindrance in his deciding matters before him/her without fear or favour”.
Kejriwal, in his additional affidavit, has alleged a “direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest”, pointing out that Justice Sharma’s son and daughter are empanelled as panel counsel for the Union government. Panel counsel are private advocates appointed by a government to a roster to represent it in legal matters.
He has claimed that official records show the judge’s son, Ishaan Sharma, is a Group ‘A’ panel counsel for the Supreme Court, while her daughter Shambhavi Sharma is a government pleader for the Delhi High Court and a Group ‘C’ panel counsel for the SC. He has also submitted that on April 13, Justice Sharma attended some programmes organised by Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Parishad, “which follows a particular ideology… giving rise to apprehension in his mind…”
The CBI rebutted this argument, saying that if such an argument by Kejriwal is accepted, “any judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court will be disqualified to take up any matters of Arvind Kejriwal since he perceives a reasonable bias in his mind that each judge who attends the function of Adhivakta Parishad are necessarily biased”.
Story continues below this ad
The agency added that “Adhivakta Parishad is an association of members of the Bar” and “almost all judges attend the functions”, since these are organised to discuss “purely legal issues”.
Following the hearing, the AAP maintained that while the CBI “doesn’t dispute any of key facts pointed out by Kejriwal in his recusal plea”, yet it claimed that “there is no conflict of interest”.
“…the CBI has not disputed that both children of Justice Sharma are on the Union government panel. It has also not disputed that Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who appears for the CBI in this case, marks them cases that are paid matters. It has further not disputed that the son has been marked over 5,500 matters since his empanelment in 2022… It has also not disputed that this empanelment and marking coincide with the tenure of the hon’ble Justice as a HC Judge. If this is not a conflict of interest, what is,” the party asked.
