New Delhi [India], April 17 : The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Thursday filed its response in the Delhi High Court to the fresh affidavit submitted by AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal under his recusal plea in the so-called liquor policy case.
In its response, the CBI has not disputed any of the key facts placed on record by Arvind Kejriwal, yet claims that there is no conflict of interest, according to a release.
Arvind Kejriwal had earlier appeared before the Delhi High Court and filed an additional affidavit pointing out that both children of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma are on the Union Government panel. The affidavit also stated that Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who appears for the CBI in this case, marks them as cases that are paid matters.
It further stated that the son has been marked over 5,500 matters since his empanelment in 2022, an extraordinarily high number for a young lawyer, and that this empanelment and marking coincide with the tenure of the Justice as a High Court Judge. The affidavit stated that these facts create a reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of a litigant.
In its response, the CBI has not disputed that both children of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma are on the Union Government panel. It has also not been disputed that Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who appears for the CBI in this case, marks them as cases that are paid matters.
It has not been disputed that the son has been marked over 5,500 matters since his empanelment in 2022, an extraordinarily high number for a young lawyer. It has also not been disputed that this empanelment and marking coincide with the tenure of the Hon'ble Justice as a High Court Judge. 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 CBI has further argued that accepting this logic would mean that judges whose relatives are empanelled with governments or public sector undertakings would be disqualified from hearing such cases. This is a diversion. The issue is not empanelment. The issue is that the same Solicitor General appearing in the case is marking 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.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor