The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notices to former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders in a criminal contempt case linked to alleged defamatory social media posts targeting a judge. The court granted four weeks to the AAP politicians to file their responses, with the next hearing scheduled for August 4.
Background of the Contempt Case
The contempt proceedings stem from the ongoing Delhi excise policy case, in which the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has challenged a trial court order discharging Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 21 others. The contempt case relates to allegations that certain social media posts and online campaigns attempted to scandalise the judiciary and undermine the authority of the court after Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma declined to recuse herself from hearing the matter.
Justice Sharma's Observations
Justice Sharma had earlier observed that extremely vilifying, extremely contemptuous, and defamatory material was being circulated against her and the court. She decided to initiate contempt proceedings against some respondents and other alleged contemnors. However, she clarified that she was not recusing herself from the excise policy matter but transferred the main case to another bench on grounds of judicial propriety and discipline after initiating contempt proceedings.
Transfer of the Case
The contempt matter has now been assigned to a division bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja, while Justice Manoj Jain is expected to hear the CBI's revision plea challenging the discharge order.
Background of the Excise Policy Case
The controversy began after a trial court on February 27 discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 21 others in the alleged liquor policy irregularities case, ruling that the prosecution's case stood entirely discredited. Justice Sharma had also rejected Kejriwal's plea seeking her recusal from the matter, saying the application did not meet the legal threshold for establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Several AAP leaders had boycotted proceedings before Justice Sharma after her refusal to step aside from the case. In her order initiating contempt action, Justice Sharma reportedly observed that while fair criticism of judicial orders is permissible, there is a distinction between fair criticism and running a campaign to portray a judge as biased.
