The Delhi High Court has reassigned two cases related to the Delhi excise policy to different benches, moving them from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. The cases include a revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and criminal contempt proceedings against Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) functionaries.
Reassignment of Cases
Justice Manoj Jain is likely to hear the CBI’s revision plea on Tuesday. Meanwhile, a division bench headed by a senior judge has been assigned the contempt case. The reassignment follows Justice Sharma’s decision to transfer the CBI petition after initiating contempt proceedings, to avoid any perception of bias.
On Monday, the high court’s website confirmed that the chief justice had reallocated both cases to other benches. Justice Jain is currently presiding over petitions by former Union minister Lalu Prasad and businessman Robert Vadra, who are challenging actions by probe agencies in their respective cases.
CBI Revision Petition
Justice Jain will examine the CBI’s challenge to the discharge of Kejriwal and other accused in the excise policy case, which involves alleged irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the policy.
Criminal Contempt Proceedings
The contempt proceedings have been listed before a division bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja. These proceedings were initiated by Justice Sharma after she observed that a coordinated social media campaign had been carried out to scandalise the judiciary in connection with the excise policy case.
Justice Sharma noted that the actions of the proposed contemnors were calculated to scandalise the court, lower the authority of the institution of justice, interfere with the administration of justice, and intimidate the independent exercise of judicial functions. She emphasised 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.
“The court cannot permit erosion of the constitutional and justice delivery systems by tolerating organised assaults in the name of public discourse,” Justice Sharma stated in her order, adding that such attempts, if unchecked, could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
Justice Sharma clarified that the transfer of the main excise policy case to another bench was not a recusal at the asking of the accused persons, but a step necessitated by judicial propriety and discipline after the initiation of contempt proceedings. She pointed out that the main revision petition could be heard by any other bench, but the acts of the proposed contemnors, directed against her court and the institution of the judiciary, could only be addressed by her.
