AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and other respondents had moved applications seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal from hearing the CBI’s appeal against their discharge in the excise policy case, alleging conflict of interest and apprehension of bias. File.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
The Delhi High Court on Thursday (May 14, 2026) initiated criminal contempt proceedings against AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj and others over alleged defamatory and “vilifying” social media posts targeting Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in connection with the excise policy case.In a strongly worded order, Justice Sharma said, “Though inside the courtroom he (Mr. Kejriwal) professed respect for the court and the judicial system, outside the courtroom he orchestrated a calculated campaign of vilification and intimidation, instead of challenging the order before the Supreme Court.”Mr. Kejriwal, Mr. Sisodia and other respondents had moved applications seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal from hearing the CBI’s appeal against their discharge in the excise policy case, alleging conflict of interest and apprehension of bias. One of their grounds was that her children were empanelled Central government lawyers who received work through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.After Justice Sharma declined to recuse herself, Mr. Kejriwal, Mr. Sisodia and Mr. Pathak chose not to appear or be represented by counsel in the proceedings. Meanwhile, AAP leaders also took to social media platforms, claiming that Justice Sharma attended four events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad and contending that the lawyer’s body was ideologically aligned with the BJP-RSS and that, as political opponents, they apprehended that the judge “might be sympathetic” with that ideology.“They wanted to intimidate me. I refuse to be intimidated,” the judge remarked in open court. She further observed that even members of her family had been dragged into the controversy through insinuations and that the campaign attempted to “sow seeds of distrust in the public against the judiciary”.Justice Sharma also directed that the CBI’s plea be placed before another Bench. Clarifying that she was not recusing herself from the matter, the judge said she had already delivered her judgment on the recusal plea and “stood by it”. However, since criminal contempt proceedings had now been initiated, the main case could not continue before her Bench.“Selectively edited”Justice Sharma also took exception to videos and social media posts circulated by AAP leaders alleging that she had spoken at an RSS event. The court said the video had been “selectively edited” to create a misleading narrative.“Only a clip of 59 seconds was extracted from a video of over six minutes. The background showing the college event was cropped and edited to portray as if the judge were speaking at an event associated with RSS and BJP, which was not the case,” the judge said, clarifying that she had in fact been speaking at a college event in Varanasi.The court further held that the statements made by the AAP leaders went beyond fair criticism of a judicial order and amounted to an attack on the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
