With a history of myriad cases of character assassinations for which he had said sorry and sought apologies in many courts of the country while facing defamation charges, former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal seems to have crossed all limits by demanding the recusal of the Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing CBI’s appeal against his discharge by a lower court in the excise policy case.
Kejriwal contends that the judge’s lawyer-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 CBI.
Kejriwal has 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 has further noted that both are assigned matters by the SG, who is opposing the recusal plea before Justice Sharma and representing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the case.
But then his “lies” have been exposed, with CBI telling the Delhi High Court that neither of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s two children has “ever dealt with or even assisted anyone in any of the matters pertaining to the excise policy case “before any court in past at any stage of proceedings” and has been “involved in the matter in any capacity whatsoever”.
But the argument of the CBI that deserves utmost attention is that if Kejriwal’s reasons for requesting recusal is to be accepted, “all learned judges throughout the country will be disqualified to hear matters about such government/s or matters of any political leader, small or big, if their relatives are on the government panel of the Central government or state government”.
I am of the strong opinion that the principle of individual accountability is a cornerstone of both modern legal systems and ethical governance. Whether it is a judge interpreting the law, a bureaucrat implementing policy, or a minister leading a department, the integrity of a public official should be measured by their own actions and decisions, rather than the conduct of their family members.
Judging professionals by the behaviour of their father, spouse, or children is not only logically flawed but also undermines the foundations of justice and meritocracy.
If we go by habitual character –assassin Kejriwal’s perverse logic, the Supreme Court or for that matter High Courts would not have had famous judges who have delivered historic judgments. After all,
a significant percentage of Supreme Court and High Court judges come from families with political or extensive legal backgrounds.
See the following examples:
Recent reports have identified that of the 33 judges now on the Supreme Court bench, around 10 are related to former judges and an equal number have fathers who were lawyers.
Specific examples of judges with active political backgrounds in their immediate family include:
High Court Judges: Studies indicate that of the 689 permanent high court judges (as of March 2025), a "significant number" have connections to the legal profession, with many also linked to political backgrounds. Research into 687 high court judges found 102 are related to former or sitting judges and 117 were related to members of the legal fraternity.
Not long ago there was a research study that suggested that roughly 60% of sitting SC judges are from legal families (lawyer or judge families). While many focus on legal lineages, there are multiple instances where high court judges have been close relatives of state-level or national-level politicians.
In fact, many of the judges were once Advocate Generals and senior legal officials of various state governments. And these posts were essentially given (or are given even today) by the concerned ruling political party of the state. But that background never came on the way in their transition to become judges of high integrity.
Notable Examples of Advocate Generals/Government Lawyers Elevated include:
S.M. Sikri: Served as Advocate General in Punjab before becoming the first lawyer directly appointed to the Supreme Court, later serving as the 13th Chief Justice of India.
Kuldip Singh: Served as Advocate General for Punjab and later Additional Solicitor General of India before being elevated to the Supreme Court.
Santosh Hegde: Solicitor General of India prior to his appointment as a Supreme Court judge.
M. Hidayatullah: Acted as Advocate General for the High Court of Central Provinces and Berar before becoming the youngest Chief Justice of a High Court and later Chief Justice of India.
NV Ramana: Served as Additional Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh before being elevated to the High Court and eventually becoming the Chief Justice of India.
Surya Kant: The present Chief Justice of the country served as the Advocate General for Haryana before his elevation to the judiciary.
Given these examples, one can say that in the ultimate analysis, every adult is responsible for his or her own choices. In a free society, family members are distinct legal and moral entities. A son’s financial indiscretion or a spouse’s political activism does not inherently reflect the character or the competence of the official. To hold an official accountable for the actions of their kin—over whom they may have no legal control or even daily influence—is a form of "guilt by association." This archaic mindset belongs to eras of tribalism or feudalism, where bloodlines determined worth, rather than a democratic system based on personal merit.
Furthermore, judging officials by their family’s actions creates a dangerous precedent for political victimisation. In the high-stakes world of governance, it is easy for opponents to weaponise the mistakes of a relative to derail an official’s career. If we allow "familial guilt" to be the standard, we risk losing highly capable individuals who may have a "black sheep" in the family tree. This doesn't just hurt the individual; it deprives the state of talent and creates an environment where public service is viewed as a liability for the entire family unit.
As regards the factor of conflict of interest, the answer is very clear. While an official should not be judged for a relative’s “behaviour”, they must be judged for how they “react” to it. If ministers or civil servants use their power to shield a child from legal consequences, or if a judge hears a case involving a spouse’s or child’s interest, the issue is no longer about the family member’s actions—it is about the official’s breach of professional ethics.
The focus must remain on whether the official maintained a "Chinese wall" between their private life and public duty.
Leave Your Comment