Former CM Arvind Kejriwal has filed an additional affidavit before the court in support of his pending recusal application, placing on record what he describes as “subsequently discovered facts” that, according to him, strengthen a reasonable apprehension of lack of judicial neutrality.

In the affidavit, Kejriwal relies on official records and publicly available documents to state that immediate family members of the presiding judge are empanelled as counsel for the Union Government and have been receiving substantial government work over a sustained period. He contends that these are not merely honorary positions but continuing professional engagements involving allocation of cases by central law officers, thereby giving rise to a “direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest.”

Referring to government notifications and FAQs of the Ministry of Law and Justice, the affidavit highlights that allocation of cases to panel counsel is routed through the Attorney General and Solicitor General, who are also appearing in the present matter. Kejriwal argues that this institutional overlap, particularly in a politically sensitive criminal prosecution involving the CBI, intensifies the apprehension that the proceedings may not carry the appearance of judicial detachment required by law.

Clarifying that he is not alleging actual bias, Kejriwal submits that the legal standard is one of reasonable apprehension in the mind of a fair litigant. He asserts that the cumulative facts, including prior orders and the present circumstances, justify recusal to preserve the integrity of the process.

The affidavit also raises procedural concerns, alleging that hearings on the recusal application continued beyond normal court hours after he had left, thereby denying him an opportunity to respond to submissions made thereafter. He further contends that substantive orders in the main matter were passed while the recusal plea was still pending, which, according to him, ought to have been avoided.

Kejriwal has urged the court to take the additional facts on record and consider them in deciding the recusal application, stating that the interests of justice would be best served if the matter is heard by a different Bench.