Fresh plea seeks contempt action against Kejriwal over alleged campaign targeting HC judge

Delhi High Court judge initiates contempt case against Arvind Kejriwal and AAP leaders for alleged defamatory social media posts targeting her.

New Delhi: Days after Delhi High Court judge, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, initiated criminal contempt case against former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders over allegedly defamatory social media posts against her, a fresh petition has been filed, seeking contempt action against the AAP national convenor, accusing him of running a coordinated campaign targeting the judge.

Petition filed by advocate Ashok Chaitanya, following consent by Delhi government’s standing counsel (criminal) Sanjeev Bhandari, is listed for hearing on May 22 before a bench of justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja. (HT Archive)

The petition filed by advocate Ashok Chaitanya, following consent by Delhi government’s standing counsel (criminal) Sanjeev Bhandari, is listed for hearing on Friday before a bench of justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja.

In his petition, which also seeks action against AAP leaders Saurabh Bhardwaj and Gopal Rai, as well as a journalist, Chaitanya said that, while Kejriwal’s application seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal from hearing CBI’s appeal against the trial court’s discharge order in the excise policy case was sub judice, a concerted and orchestrated campaign was initiated by them on X, publishing and amplifying content containing serious, unfounded and scandalous allegations.

“The said content was not only published by one Respondent but was actively endorsed, republished, and amplified by the other Respondents, all of whom are persons of significant public standing and influence. The coordinated nature of the posts, their timing during the pendency of judicial proceedings, and the nature of the allegations clearly demonstrate a calculated attempt to lower the authority of the Court and interfere with the due course of justice,” the petition stated.

An unprecedented face-off began between Justice Sharma and Kejriwal on February 27, when a trial court discharged Kejriwal and others in the excise policy case, prompting CBI to approach the high court. On March 9, Justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental action against a CBI officer and deferred Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings.

Kejriwal then sought to transfer the matter from her bench, which was rejected by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya on March 13.

On April 5, Kejriwal, Sisodia and others sought Justice Sharma’s recusal, which she dismissed on April 20. On April 27, Kejriwal informed the judge in a letter that he would boycott the proceedings. Following this, Sisodia and Pathak also wrote similar letters. On May 5, the court decided to appoint senior advocates as amicus curiae to represent the three leaders, but the matter was deferred on three occasions.

However, on May 14, Justice Sharma initiated contempt proceedings and withdrew herself from hearing CBI’s appeal and the contempt case, stating that the law did not permit a judge who has initiated contempt proceedings over allegedly defamatory, contemptuous and vilifying material posted against the judge on social media – in relation to a matter, to continue hearing that very matter. But she clarified that her earlier April 20 order – refusing to recuse from the excise policy case – stands.

The judge held that after she refused to recuse, Kejriwal adopted a course of “vilification” and “intimidation.” The judge observed that instead of challenging the order before the Supreme Court, Kejriwal chose to issue a letter boycotting the proceedings and released a video in which, according to the court, he levelled false allegations against her.

On May 19, a division bench of justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja, issued notice in the contempt petition, while in a separate development, another bench asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to issue fresh notices informing Kejriwal, Delhi’s former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, and Aam Aadmi Party leader Durgesh Pathak that the agency’s appeal against the trial court order discharging the AAP convenor and 22 others in the Delhi excise policy case had been assigned to that bench.