New Delhi, April 16 -- Former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal has filed an additional affidavit before the Delhi High Court reiterating his request of seeking Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's recusal from hearing CBI's appeal against their discharge in the excise policy case, contending that the judge's children are empanelled with the Centre and are allocated cases by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, who is contesting the appeal on behalf of the agency. In the affidavit filed on Tuesday, a day after Justice Sharma reserved her verdict on the applications, Kejriwal stated that her son is empanelled as a Group A counsel representing the Centre before the Supreme Court, while her daughter is empanelled as a Group C counsel representing the Centre before the Supreme Court and also serves as a pleader for the Centre before the Delhi High Court. He further noted that both are assigned matters by the SG, who is opposing the recusal plea before Justice Sharma andrepresenting the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in thecase. "I state that in the present case, the learned Solicitor General, who is appearing before this Hon'ble court for the CBI, is opposing my recusal application, and is arguing the revision petition against the discharge order passed in my favour. I respectfully state that this gives rise to a direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest. The very law officer and legal establishment representing the prosecuting side before this Hon'ble court is also part of the institutional mechanism by which central government cases and government work are allocated to the immediate family members of the Hon'ble Judge hearing the matter," the affidavit stated. "But in a criminal case of this nature, where the prosecuting agency is the CBI, where the central government's highest law officers appear against me, and where the immediate family members of the Hon'ble judge hold multiple live central government panel engagements and receive government work through the same legal establishment and law officer, the apprehension becomes direct, grave and impossible for me to ignore", it added. The affidavit highlighted that Justice Sharma's son has been entrusted with a significant volume of Central government legal work, with 2,487 cases assigned in 2023, 1,784 in 2024, and 1,633 in 2025. In his affidavit, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convener stated that his apprehensions were heightened by the alleged denial of an opportunity to present rejoinder submissions on his recusal application, court's conduct of continuing and concluding the hearing on the applications beyond court hours. On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others, holding that the CBI's material did not disclose even a prima facie case. The agency challenged this in the high court, calling the findings "inherently wrong" and ignoring key evidence.On March 9, Justice Sharma's bench stayed the trial court's direction for departmental action against the CBI officer, terming the remarks "prima facie foundationally misconceived". A plea to transfer the case to another judge was rejected by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya on March 13. On Monday, Justice Sharma reserved her order on the recusal plea....