The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has opposed before the Delhi High Court a fresh affidavit filed by AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case, calling the allegations of bias baseless, belated and part of a coordinated attempt to influence the court.The development came on Thursday when the High Court agreed to take on record Kejriwal’s additional affidavit, even as it made clear that the matter, already reserved for orders, would not be reopened for further hearing.Appearing via video conferencing, Kejriwal urged the court to accept his new affidavit after the Registry indicated that judicial permission was required. “I want to file an additional affidavit. I have already filed it in the registry, but they need the court’s permission to take it on record,” he submitted.Allowing the request, Justice Sharma directed that the affidavit be taken on record through electronic filing but underlined that the proceedings would not be revived. “We are taking it on record. The registry will take it on record. Please file it through electronic mode. The copy may be given to the other side. This matter is reserved. I am not reopening it,” the court said.In his affidavit, Kejriwal reiterated that Justice Sharma ought to recuse herself on the ground that her children were empanelled as the Central Government counsel. He argued earlier that since the Solicitor General, appearing for the CBI in the case, allocates work to such panel lawyers, this creates a reasonable apprehension of bias. He maintained that, as per established judicial practice, judges recuse themselves in situations where close relatives have professional associations with parties involved in a case.The CBI, however, rejected the contention, stating that neither of Justice Sharma’s children, advocates Ishaan Sharma and Shambhavi Sharma, have had any role in the excise policy matter. It asserted that both were independent practitioners who had neither dealt with nor assisted in the case at any stage.The agency further clarified that Ishaan Sharma had been on the Centre’s panel since 2022, countering the claim that his empanelment was recent. It added that the panel counsel are routinely assigned matters alongside others to assist law officers and do not function in any exclusive capacity.Dismissing the recusal plea, the CBI argued that accepting such reasoning would disqualify judges from hearing any matter involving the Centre, states or public-sector undertakings if their relatives are empanelled counsel. It termed the plea an “afterthought” and pointed to what it described as a “selective, premeditated and vitriolic” social media campaign aimed at embarrassing the court.Referring to an RTI application filed by a third party in February, the agency said details disclosed in March were publicised only after the court sought its response on April 6. It alleged that the information was amplified online in a coordinated manner, including by Kejriwal and party leaders, to exert pressure on the Bench.The CBI warned that such “unhealthy and anarchist practices” must be curbed, cautioning that yielding to such tactics would set a damaging precedent and undermine the judiciary’s ability to function without fear or favour.The court had earlier, on April 13, reserved orders on the recusal applications filed by Kejriwal and other accused, while hearing the CBI’s revision plea challenging their discharge in the excise policy case.