New Delhi : Former Delhi Chief Minister and AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal is expected to appear before Justice Swarnakanta Sharma in court at 2:30 pm via video conferencing today. Delhi Leader of Opposition (LoP) and AAP leader Atishi informed this through a post on X on April 16.
Her post read: "Today, Arvind Kejriwal will again appear before Justice Swarnakanta Sharma at 2:30 pm via video conferencing to press for his fresh affidavit to be taken on record, which is still pending. Videos of his appearance are removed swiftly, but for an affidavit raising a serious conflict of interest, he must return to court. What does this say about our judicial system? Does the judiciary want to avoid scrutiny and transparency?"
In his affidavit, Kejriwal focuses on the institutional process through which government cases are assigned to law officers and panel counsel, arguing that this mechanism creates a linkage between the prosecution in the present case and the professional engagements of the judge's immediate family members. He submits that this connection, when viewed objectively, is sufficient to raise concerns about perceived neutrality.
Referring to official notifications and FAQs issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Kejriwal states that while the Attorney General chooses matters for personal appearance, other cases are routed through the Solicitor General to additional law officers and panel counsel.
According to him, this system establishes a continuing and structured professional interface with the Central Government. He further argues that such empanelment is substantive in nature, involving regular allocation of cases, financial remuneration, and court exposure.
Relying on RTI material, the affidavit points to a significant volume of government cases assigned over the years, suggesting an ongoing professional relationship. Kejriwal contends that since the Solicitor General is representing the Central Bureau of Investigation in the present proceedings and opposing his plea, the overlap creates a direct and reasonable apprehension in the mind of a litigant.