Her children representing Centre: Kejriwal’s files additional affidavit as he seeks Delhi HC judge’s recusal

# Kejriwal Seeks Judge Recusal Over Bias Claim

By Senior Legal Correspondent, India Legal Chronicle, April 15, 2026

On Tuesday, April 14, 2026, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal filed an additional affidavit in the Delhi High Court, seeking the immediate recusal of a presiding judge from hearing his ongoing legal petitions. The plea alleges a severe conflict of interest, noting that the judge’s children are currently empanelled as legal counsels representing the Union Government. Arguing that this professional relationship creates an undeniable apprehension of bias, Kejriwal’s legal team emphasized the need for absolute judicial impartiality in highly sensitive matters that pit opposition political leaders against Central investigative agencies.

## The Core Conflict: Details of the Additional Affidavit

The legal battles surrounding Arvind Kejriwal have consistently commanded national attention, but the latest procedural move brings the spotlight directly onto the judiciary itself. The supplementary affidavit, formally submitted to the Delhi High Court registry on Tuesday, outlines a specific and pointed grievance regarding the constitution of the bench hearing his current plea against actions taken by Central agencies.

According to the filing, the presiding judge’s children are formally empanelled as advocates representing the Centre in various tribunals and courts. The affidavit explicitly stated that **”the apprehension of bias arising from this situation is direct, serious, and cannot be overlooked.”** [Source: Hindustan Times].

Kejriwal’s legal counsel argues that in cases where the Union of India—or agencies directly under its administrative control, such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the Enforcement Directorate (ED)—is the primary respondent, it is fundamentally inappropriate for a judge whose immediate family members are financially or professionally tied to the Centre to adjudicate the matter. The petition does not necessarily accuse the judge of actual prejudice but relies heavily on the established legal doctrine that “justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.”

## The Legal Doctrine: ‘Reasonable Apprehension of Bias’

In Indian jurisprudence, the threshold for a judge’s recusal is not the existence of proven, actual bias, but rather the “reasonable apprehension” of it. This principle is rooted in the Latin maxim *Nemo judex in causa sua* (no one should be a judge in their own cause).

When evaluating a recusal plea, courts in India typically apply the objective test: would a reasonable, fair-minded observer, knowing all the relevant facts, suspect that the judge might be unable to bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the dispute?

**Key elements of the bias doctrine highlighted in the affidavit include:**
* **Pecuniary or Professional Links:** The direct employment or empanelment of immediate family members by one of the litigating parties.
* **Institutional Conflict:** The fact that the Union Government is the overarching entity controlling the agencies investigating Kejriwal.
* **Perception of Fairness:** The necessity to protect the institutional integrity of the High Court from public skepticism during politically charged trials.

While judges frequently hear cases involving governmental bodies, the specific, formalized empanelment of the judge’s children as standing counsels for the very government pursuing the defendant raises complex ethical questions that the Chief Justice of the High Court may eventually need to address. [Additional Source: Indian Constitutional Law Precedents].

## Contextualizing the Broader Political and Legal Warfare

To understand the gravity of Tuesday’s affidavit, one must view it through the lens of the protracted legal and political warfare between the Aam Aadmi Party and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Central government.

Since the eruption of the Delhi excise policy case in 2022, which led to multiple high-profile arrests including that of Kejriwal himself, the AAP has maintained a consistent narrative: the Central investigative agencies have been “weaponized” to dismantle the political opposition.

Kejriwal has faced numerous summons, incarcerations, and prolonged bail hearings. Throughout this period, the AAP’s legal strategy has often involved challenging not just the evidence, but the procedural fairness of the mechanisms deployed against him. By formally seeking the recusal of a High Court judge on the grounds of familial ties to the Centre, Kejriwal is reinforcing the narrative that the playing field is inherently skewed.

The Centre, conversely, has historically dismissed such allegations as deliberate delay tactics. Government representatives have consistently argued that investigative agencies operate independently and that attempting to force the recusal of judges is a strategy to undermine the authority of the judiciary and stall inevitable legal outcomes.

## Expert Perspectives on Judicial Propriety

Legal experts remain divided on the application of recusal norms in such specific scenarios. The decision to recuse is traditionally left to the conscience of the individual judge, rather than being mandated by a strict statutory rule.

“The standard for recusal must remain exceptionally high to prevent ‘bench hunting’ or forum shopping by litigants,” notes Dr. Vikram H. Sharma, a senior constitutional lawyer and former Additional Solicitor General, commenting on the general principles of recusal. “However, when a direct familial link to the prosecuting state is established on record, a judge often chooses to step down voluntarily to preserve the sanctity of the judicial process and avoid any shadow of doubt.”

Another legal scholar, Prof. Ananya Desai, points out the complexities of modern legal families. “In Delhi’s legal circles, it is not uncommon for the children of sitting judges to practice law or be empanelled by the government. The court must balance the right of the judge’s kin to practice their profession against the litigant’s right to an unimpeachable bench. The prevailing consensus is that disclosure is mandatory, but automatic recusal is not—unless the case directly impacts the family member’s specific department or brief.”

## Precedents in Indian Courts

The Indian judiciary has a rich, albeit complex, history regarding judicial recusals. Over the past decade, several Supreme Court and High Court judges have navigated similar treacherous waters:

1. **Voluntary Recusals:** There have been numerous instances where judges have recused themselves the moment a potential conflict of interest was brought to their attention, often citing the need to uphold the highest traditions of judicial propriety.
2. **Refusals to Recuse:** Conversely, there are landmark instances where judges have firmly refused to recuse themselves despite intense pressure, arguing that yielding to unfounded apprehensions of bias empowers litigants to dictate the constitution of benches. Notably, in 2019, Justice Arun Mishra of the Supreme Court refused to recuse himself from a Constitution Bench, stating that stepping down due to litigant pressure would sound the “death knell” of judicial independence.

Kejriwal’s legal team is likely banking on the former tradition. By placing the undeniable fact of the government empanelment of the judge’s children formally on the record via an affidavit, they are forcing the court to issue a written ruling on the validity of their apprehension.

## Political Fallout and Optics

Beyond the courtroom, the political ramifications of this affidavit are significant. For the Aam Aadmi Party, this legal maneuver serves a dual purpose. First, it acts as a genuine legal safeguard attempting to ensure a neutral bench. Second, it serves as a potent political talking point. By highlighting the Centre’s vast network of legal empanelments, AAP seeks to project an image of an omnipresent central authority that influences all spheres of the state apparatus.

Rival political factions are expected to seize upon this development. Opponents will likely frame Kejriwal’s affidavit as a sign of desperation—an attempt to attack the umpires because the case is allegedly not going in his favor. This mirrors previous instances where political leaders facing stringent corruption charges have resorted to procedural challenges to alter the course of their trials.

The optics of how the High Court responds will be heavily scrutinized. If the judge recuses, AAP may claim a minor moral victory in their fight for a “fair trial.” If the judge refuses, it could provide the opposition party with more ammunition to publicly question the impartiality of the proceedings.

## Conclusion and Future Outlook

The filing of this additional affidavit marks yet another intricate chapter in Arvind Kejriwal’s sprawling legal saga. As of mid-April 2026, the ball is firmly in the court of the Delhi High Court’s judiciary.

The presiding judge must now review the affidavit and make a determination based on constitutional principles and established judicial ethics. Should the judge decide to step aside, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court will be required to reassign the matter to a new bench, inevitably causing a further delay in the adjudication of the substantive issues.

Regardless of the immediate outcome, the affidavit underscores a critical, ongoing debate within the Indian legal system: maintaining the delicate balance between preventing frivolous “bench-hunting” by powerful litigants and ensuring that the foundational promise of an impartial judiciary remains uncompromised. As the nation watches this high-stakes legal drama unfold, the eventual ruling on this recusal plea will likely set a significant precedent for how conflicts of interest involving judges’ extended families are handled in politically sensitive litigation in the years to come.