The Delhi high court on Friday issued notice to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Gopal Rai and a journalist on a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against them for allegedly running a coordinated campaign targeting justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.Representational image.The petition, filed by lawyer Ashok Chaitanya, had also sought contempt action against former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and AAP leader Saurabh Bharadwaj. However, a bench of justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja noted that justice Sharma had already initiated contempt proceedings against them and notice had already been issued in that matter.The bench observed that issuing notice again would amount to “multiplying the case”.“On almost similar allegations and material, the single judge of this court, by judgment dated April 14, has already initiated contempt petition against respondent 1 (Kejriwal) and 2 (Bhardwaj) and we have issued notice to the respondents. Keeping in view the above, we are of the view that instead of multiplying this case be taken up with (suo moto criminal contempt petition) and since respondents 3 (Gopal Rai) and 4 (journalist) are not parties in the contempt case, let notice of this petition be served on them returnable on August 4, 2026. The contemnor numbers 1 and 2 shall also be supplied with the material that has been furnished. As we have already appointed an amicus in the contempt case, we need not multiply the same,” the court said in its order.The court directed the petitioner to supply copies of the petition to Kejriwal and Bhardwaj and tagged the matter with the criminal contempt proceedings initiated by Justice Sharma.In his plea, Chaitanya alleged that while Kejriwal’s application seeking justice Sharma’s recusal from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s appeal against a trial court order discharging him in the excise policy case was pending, the respondents launched a “concerted and orchestrated campaign” on X by publishing and amplifying scandalous allegations against the judge.“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.The confrontation between Justice Sharma and Kejriwal began on February 27 after a trial court discharged Kejriwal and others in the excise policy case, prompting the 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 proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate.Kejriwal subsequently sought transfer of the matter from Justice Sharma’s bench, but the plea was rejected by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya on March 13.On April 5, Kejriwal, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and others sought Justice Sharma’s recusal, which she rejected on April 20. A week later, on April 27, Kejriwal informed the court through a letter that he would boycott the proceedings. Sisodia and AAP leader Durgesh Pathak later sent similar communications.On May 5, the court decided to appoint senior advocates as amicus curiae to represent the three leaders, though the matter was deferred on three occasions.On May 14, Justice Sharma initiated contempt proceedings and recused herself from hearing both the CBI appeal and the contempt case, observing that a judge who had initiated contempt action over allegedly defamatory and contemptuous material circulated against her on social media could not continue hearing the same matter.However, the judge clarified that her earlier April 20 order refusing to recuse from the excise policy matter would remain valid.Justice Sharma observed that after she declined to recuse, Kejriwal adopted a course of “vilification” and “intimidation”. She noted that instead of challenging her order before the Supreme Court, Kejriwal issued a letter boycotting proceedings and released a video in which, according to the court, false allegations were levelled against her.On May 19, the division bench of justices Chawla and Dudeja issued notice in the contempt proceedings. In a separate development, another bench directed the CBI to issue fresh notices to Kejriwal, Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak informing them that the agency’s appeal against the trial court order discharging Kejriwal and 22 others in the Delhi excise policy case had been assigned to that bench.