New Delhi: Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court on Wednesday recused himself from hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought contempt action against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, including Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia. The PIL alleged that these leaders posted and shared clips of a court hearing related to Kejriwal’s plea for recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the liquor policy case, as reported by news agency PTI.
Background of the PIL
The PIL, filed by advocate Vaibhav Singh, was listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Karia. During the proceedings, the bench directed that the matter be placed before another bench on Thursday. The court stated, “This matter will not be heard by this bench. List tomorrow before a bench of which one of us, Justice Tejas Karia, is not a member.”
Counsel for the petitioner requested that the case be transferred to another bench already dealing with a similar issue. Apart from the AAP leaders, the PIL names the high court administration and social media platforms such as Meta Platforms, X, and Google as parties. Notably, Justice Karia, before his elevation to the bench, was a partner at a leading law firm and had represented Meta in several cases.
Allegations in the PIL
In his plea, Singh argued that unauthorized sharing of court proceedings on social media undermines judicial independence and violates high court rules. The PIL further alleged that several AAP leaders and members of other opposition parties, including Congress leader Digvijaya Singh, “intentionally and deliberately recorded and circulated” videos of Kejriwal’s appearance before Justice Sharma on April 13 with the aim of maligning the court’s image.
Claiming that Kejriwal and his associates hatched a “conspiracy” and adopted a “dirty strategy” to record the proceedings, the plea sought the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the matter. It also sought initiation of contempt proceedings against “all respondents who uploaded, reposted, forwarded the recording of court proceedings dated 13.04.2026.”
Demand for Removal of Videos
The petition also sought the removal of the videos from social media platforms. Earlier, on April 15, Singh had filed a complaint with the high court registrar general over the alleged unauthorized recording of court proceedings. On Monday, Justice Sharma declined to recuse herself from the liquor policy case, observing that a litigant cannot be allowed to judge a judge without any material and that recusal cannot be based on unfounded apprehensions of bias.
The development highlights the ongoing legal tussle surrounding the sharing of court proceedings and the boundaries of judicial conduct in the digital age. The matter is now scheduled for hearing before a different bench on Thursday.
