Back
Delhi HC Initiates Contempt Against Kejriwal, Transfers Excise Case
In a resounding assertion of
,
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Thursday initiated
against
supremo Arvind Kejriwal and several senior leaders—including Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra, Durgesh Pathak, and Saurabh Bharadwaj—for orchestrating what she described as a
"
"
via social media. The action stemmed from defamatory posts and selectively edited videos circulated after the judge rejected their
in the high-profile Excise Policy case. Emphasizing that she would not be cowed, Justice Sharma declared,
"They wanted to intimidate me...I REFUSE TO BE INTIMIDATED."
Concurrently, she directed the transfer of the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) petition challenging the trial court's discharge of the accused to another bench, framing it as "
" rather than recusal, and noting the
"personal price for constitutional courage."
This development underscores escalating tensions between political actors and the judiciary, raising critical questions about the limits of free speech, the role of social media in litigation, and safeguards for judicial integrity in politically charged matters.
Background: The Excise Policy Saga
The Excise Policy case revolves around allegations of corruption and irregularities in the Delhi government's now-scrapped liquor policy introduced in . The policy reportedly increased wholesalers' commission from 5% to 12%, allegedly enabling kickbacks to AAP leaders. The CBI and probed the matter, leading to arrests, including Kejriwal and Sisodia (though Kejriwal was later bailed in related ED proceedings).
A pivotal turn came on , when a trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, Pathak, and 20 others, ruling no overarching conspiracy or criminal intent, and criticizing the CBI's chargesheet for lacking cogent evidence. The CBI appealed this discharge to the , where Justice Sharma's bench was hearing the revision petition.
AAP leaders, facing the appeal, filed
in April, alleging bias. Grounds included Justice Sharma's children being empanelled as Central government lawyers (allocated briefs by
, representing CBI) and her purported attendance at events by the
, claimed to be ideologically aligned with the BJP-RSS. Kejriwal cited prior adverse orders (e.g., bail rejections later overturned by
) as fueling "
." On
, Justice Sharma rejected these, stating no material substantiated bias and dismissing
"illusions in the mind of Kejriwal"
as insufficient for recusal.
Post-rejection, Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak boycotted proceedings, announcing via letters and videos they would not appear, citing shattered faith in the judge's impartiality.
The Social Media Vilification Campaign
The contempt flashpoint emerged post-recusal order. Justice Sharma noted a "parallel narrative" constructed outside court through social media: Kejriwal published boycott letters on X (formerly Twitter), videos reiterating allegations, and claims that
"aam aadmi (common man) can't believe this court can do justice."
Other AAP leaders amplified posts questioning the judge's "political allegiance" and "ideological proximity."
A key exhibit was a "selectively edited" 59-second clip from a six-minute video of Justice Sharma speaking at a Varanasi college event. The footage, invoking Lord Shiva and Varanasi's culture, was cropped to falsely imply an RSS-BJP event, ignoring fact-checks from the college.
"When video of judge is selectively edited, it shows malice,"
the judge observed.
Justice Sharma described Kejriwal's role starkly:
"Contemnor Arvind Kejriwal orchestrated a campaign of vilification. Instead of challenging order before SC but he dragged the order to social media."
She distinguished this from fair criticism: ordinary citizens may critique orders, but the contemnors' "tone, tenor, and manner" attacked institutional integrity, sowing "seeds of distrust" by dragging family members and imputing political motives.
Justice Sharma's Scathing Observations
In a detailed open-court order, Justice Sharma emphasized the proceedings were institutional, not personal:
"These proceedings are not born in a day. The robe that I wear is not so fragile that a few criticisms will affect it."
She rejected AAP's narrative of weakness in silence:
"My silence was being mistaken for weakness and surrender, which is not true."
The judge portrayed the campaign's message:
"If a judge doesnt conform to expectations of political force, judge will be vilified."
She affirmed,
"The contemnor thought that his political stature would overawe the judiciary... I refuse to be intimidated."
Courts command respect through fearless adjudication, she added, vowing justice in "Bharat shall remain fearless."
Solicitor General's Rebuttal
urged Justice Sharma to continue:
"My first request would be that this court continue hearing the matter. Everyone must know that if i seek a recusal and if i cannot satisfy the judge, my remedy is to go to a higher forum. These unscrupulous litigants have chosen not to go to
because they know they cannot successfully challenge this order."
Mehta dismissed family conflict claims:
"Your ladyship's children are one of the 600-700 panel lawyers. They are not associated with me."
He decried tarnishing the institution and called for guidelines on such "instances."
Case Transfer: Judicial Discipline, Not Recusal
Justice Sharma clarified the transfer:
"It could be that if I keep hearing this (excise policy) case, Arvind Kejriwal and other people might think that I have a grudge against him."
Post-contempt, a judge-complainant cannot hear the substantive matter:
"This is not recusal. This is
."
She stood by her recusal rejection, attributing transfer to "subsequent events."
AAP Leaders' Response
AAP hailed it a "major victory," with Kejriwal posting:
"Truth has won. Gandhi Ji’s Satyagraha has once again emerged victorious."
Atishi called it a "big victory," vindicating bias claims. Others invoked moral power, ignoring contempt.
Legal Ramifications: Contempt and Judicial Independence
Under
, criminal contempt includes publications that
"
... or lower the authority of any court."
Justice Sharma's order aligns with precedents like
Prashant Bhushan
(2020), where social media posts criticizing judiciary crossed into contempt. The edited video evokes
Arundhati Roy
(2002), where mala fide distortions sufficed.
free speech yields to restrictions (judicial contempt). Courts have increasingly cracked down on digital vilification ( Abhyudaya Mishra , 2023), recognizing " ." No challenge by AAP bolsters malice inference.
Recusal principles ( Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India , 1987) require , not subjective fears—unmet here.
Broader Implications for Legal Practice
This episode signals zero tolerance for litigant intimidation via social media, compelling lawyers/politicians to channel grievances through appeals, not campaigns. SG Mehta's guideline call may spur rules on empanelment disclosures or digital conduct.
For judges, it validates speaking against institutional threats, potentially standardizing contempt initiation in vilification cases. Litigators must advise clients on contempt risks in boycotts/posts. Amid rising politician-judiciary clashes (e.g., wrestler protests, electoral bonds), it fortifies judicial armor, but risks "judge vs. politician" polarization.
Practitioners should monitor: Will contempt proceed to notice/show-cause? Could it consolidate with Excise merits? Impacts empanelment norms for judicial kin?
Conclusion: A Stand for Institutional Integrity
Justice Sharma's order is a clarion call: judiciary bows only to Constitution, not political pressure. By initiating contempt and transferring judiciously, she pays the "personal price" while safeguarding the institution. As campaigns proliferate, this precedent ensures
"justice in Bharat shall remain fearless,"
compelling legal fraternity to defend courts from digital siege. In an era of viral narratives, distinguishing truth from vilification defines judicial resilience.
