New Delhi, May 14: The Delhi High Court has commenced contempt proceedings against former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and several leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). The court determined that a coordinated campaign was launched to discredit the judiciary in relation to the excise policy case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued a detailed order stating that after refusing to recuse herself from the case, social media posts, videos, and public statements were made against her, crossing the line between fair criticism and criminal contempt. Justice Sharma noted that the contemptuous actions not only expressed disagreement but also aimed to defame not just her but the entire judiciary.
The Delhi High Court has issued contempt notices to Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, MP Sanjay Singh, and AAP leaders Saurabh Bhardwaj, Vinay Mishra, and Durgesh Pathak.
Justice Sharma emphasized that while judges are trained to accept fair criticism and dissent, remaining silent is not judicial restraint when there is a deliberate attempt to malign the judiciary. She clarified that the court does not seek sympathy or exemption from criticism. However, if there are attempts to harm the institution of the judiciary through organized campaigns, the court has both the power and duty to act.
The court acknowledged that criticizing judicial orders is legitimate, but there is a fine line between fair criticism and contempt of court. Any citizen can criticize a judge or order without it being considered contempt. However, there is a significant difference between fair criticism and launching a campaign to portray a judge as biased.
Justice Sharma pointed out that instead of challenging the order rejecting his plea to recuse himself in the Supreme Court, Kejriwal chose to take the matter to social media. He released letters and videos questioning the judge’s impartiality.
The judge stated that Kejriwal could have approached the Supreme Court but instead opted to publicly disseminate letters and videos alleging political bias, suggesting that justice could not be expected from this court. According to the Delhi High Court, this attitude was an attempt to create distrust in the judiciary among the public, and if not addressed, it could lead to chaos.
Justice Sharma further noted that her family members were also dragged into this controversy. This was part of a psychological pressure campaign aimed at forcing her to recuse herself from the case. She asserted that she is not afraid of anyone, as silence equates to surrender. She clarified that the contempt proceedings were initiated not out of personal anger or grievance but to protect the institution of the judiciary. Judges may come and go, but the institution of justice will always remain. The Indian judiciary will always stand fearless.
In light of the contempt proceedings, Justice Sharma has also recused herself from further hearings in the excise policy case, stating that if she continued, Kejriwal and others might believe she harbored animosity towards them. Therefore, she decided that another bench should hear this particular case.
Earlier in the day, the Delhi High Court announced it would initiate contempt proceedings due to allegedly highly derogatory and defamatory material circulated against the judge presiding over the CBI’s review petition in the excise policy case.
Justice Sharma had previously considered appointing senior lawyers as ‘amicus curiae’ when Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak decided to recuse themselves after their pleas were rejected.
The trial court had acquitted all accused, including Kejriwal and Sisodia, in its decision, which contained over 1,100 paragraphs. The court stated that the evidence on record indicated that the now-repealed excise policy was the result of a consultative and deliberative process, and the prosecution failed to prove any major conspiracy.
In its review petition in the Delhi High Court, the CBI alleged that the excise policy formulated by the then AAP-led Delhi government was manipulated to benefit select liquor traders in exchange for bribes.
On March 9, Justice Sharma issued a notice on the CBI’s petition challenging the acquittal order and also stayed the harsh remarks made by the trial court against the investigation agency and a CBI officer.
My name is Bhupendra Singh Chundawat. I am an experienced content writer with several years of expertise in the field. Currently, I contribute to Daily Kiran, creating engaging and informative content across a variety of categories including technology, health, travel, education, and automobiles. My goal is to deliver accurate, insightful, and captivating information through my words to help readers stay informed and empowered.
Leave a Comment