Delhi HC Initiates Criminal Contempt Against Kejriwal and AAP Leaders
The Delhi High Court has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and several other Aam Aadmi Party leaders, including Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma initiated the proceedings, citing a "coordinated campaign" of vilification and defamation against her on social media, which she stated amounted to criminal contempt. Consequently, Justice Sharma recused herself from hearing the excise policy case.
Key Highlights
- Delhi High Court initiated criminal contempt against AAP leaders.
- Proceedings initiated over social media posts targeting Justice Sharma.
- Justice Sharma cited a 'coordinated campaign of vilification'.
- AAP leaders accused of defaming and vilifying the judge.
- Justice Sharma recused herself from the excise policy case.
- Allegations include edited videos and public boycott announcements.
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court, through Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and other prominent Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, including Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra, Durgesh Pathak, and Saurabh Bharadwaj. [2, 5, 7, 11, 17, 26, 27, 30] The proceedings stem from a series of alleged defamatory, contemptuous, and vilifying posts and videos shared on social media by the AAP leaders, which the judge stated constituted a "coordinated campaign" to scandalize the judiciary. [2, 5, 7, 11, 13, 26, 27, 30, 36] Justice Sharma emphasized that while judges are trained to accept fair criticism, the actions of the AAP leaders crossed the line between legitimate dissent and criminal contempt, characterizing their conduct as an attempt to intimidate the judicial system and damage the institution of the judiciary. [5, 7, 11, 30, 36] The judge noted that instead of pursuing legal remedies, such as appealing to the Supreme Court after her recusal applications were rejected, Mr. Kejriwal and others allegedly took the matter to social media, publishing letters and videos questioning her impartiality. [2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 16, 18, 27] A particular point of contention was the circulation of an edited video of Justice Sharma delivering a lecture, which was falsely projected as a speech delivered for a political party to imply bias. [2, 13] The court found that this orchestrated campaign of vilification was directed not only against her as an individual but against the entire institution of the judiciary. [12, 26, 30] The judge remarked that her silence was being misinterpreted as weakness, and that she refused to be intimidated. [7, 12, 30] Consequently, Justice Sharma recused herself from further hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) revision petition challenging the discharge of the accused in the excise policy case. She stated that a judge who initiates contempt proceedings cannot continue to hear the main case, to avoid any apprehension of bias or personal grudge. [2, 3, 4, 10, 15, 18, 27, 30] The excise policy case, which has been politically sensitive, involves allegations of irregularities in the Delhi government's liquor policy, leading to arrests and prolonged custody for some AAP leaders, including Mr. Kejriwal and Mr. Sisodia. [2, 3, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 26, 27, 29, 35, 36] The trial court had previously discharged all 23 accused in the case, but the High Court had stayed the adverse observations. [2, 3, 10, 11, 16, 27, 29] The initiation of contempt proceedings highlights the judiciary's stance on protecting its integrity and authority against perceived attempts to undermine it through public campaigns and social media vilification. [5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, 26, 27, 30, 36] The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines criminal contempt as any act that scandalizes or interferes with judicial proceedings or lowers the authority of the court. [36] The Delhi High Court Rules, 2025, also outline procedures for handling such cases, emphasizing due process and the right to defense. [14, 22] The court also indicated that further action might follow against YouTubers involved in circulating edited videos. [13, 30]
Frequently Asked Questions
What is criminal contempt of court?
Criminal contempt of court involves acts or words that scandalize the court, prejudice judicial proceedings, or interfere with the administration of justice. It can include deliberate disobedience of court orders, or actions that lower the authority and dignity of the court in the eyes of the public.
Why did the Delhi High Court initiate contempt proceedings against AAP leaders?
The Delhi High Court initiated contempt proceedings because Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma alleged that Arvind Kejriwal and other AAP leaders engaged in a 'coordinated campaign' of vilification and defamation against her on social media, particularly after their recusal applications were rejected. The judge stated these actions amounted to criminal contempt by attempting to scandalize and intimidate the judiciary.
What is the significance of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recusing herself from the excise policy case?
Justice Sharma recused herself from hearing the excise policy case because she had initiated contempt proceedings against some of the key accused in that very case. According to legal principles, a judge who draws contempt proceedings against parties in a case cannot continue to hear that main case to avoid any perception of bias or personal grudge.
What is the excise policy case?
The excise policy case refers to an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Delhi government's liquor excise policy implemented in 2021-22. The case has led to the arrest of several prominent AAP leaders, including Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, and has been a subject of intense legal and political scrutiny.
