Delhi HC Initiates Criminal Contempt Against Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra, Durgesh Pathak & Saurabh Bharadwaj

Delhi High Court's Justice Swarana Kanta Sharmaon Thursday (May 14) initiated criminal contempt proceedings againstAAPleadersArvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra, Durgesh Pathak and Saurabh Bharadwajin the excise policy case noting that they had posted defamatory, contemptuous and vilifying things against her.

Justice Sharma passed the order after taking note of note various social media posts and videos shared by the respondents in connection with the recusal proceedings.

For context, the AAP leaders, who are respondents in the excise policy case, had moved applications seeking recusal of Justice Sharma. The court had howeverrejected these applicationsand declared that it will continue to hear the matter.

Today the Court was to hear CBI's petition challenging the discharge of all accused persons in the corruption case related to the alleged liquor policy and was set to pass an order appointing three senior advocates as amicus curiae to represent Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak— who had chosen toboycott proceedingsbefore Justice Sharma. However when the matter was taken up in theafternoon Justice Sharma told the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehtathat extremely defamatory and vilifying content was posted against by some respondents which had come to the court's notice, wherein it had decided to initiate contempt action.

Thereafter in the evening Justice Sharma said that the court while deciding recusal application, expects a controversy. However it was only after the recusal pronouncement, that the court came to know that coordinated social media campaign was done. It was thereafter that the social media posts circulated content also came to notice of court.

Justice Sharma also noted that during hearing of recusal application some respondents were sharing content which were widely circulated.

The judge thus said that its duty is to the Constitution and she could have chosen to stay quiet, but her staying quiet is being understood as "weakness" which is not true.

On the actions of Arvind Kejriwal the court said:

The judge said that every courtroom is respected not because of its position but because it functions for the citizens, adding that judges command respect because they adjudicate fearlessly.

"They wanted to intimidate me...I REFUSE TO BE INTIMIDATED," she added.

Justice Sharma said that any ordinary person can criticize a judge's order and that is not contempt but there is a distinction between criticism and what the Contemnors did. She said that Kejriwal carried the matter to social media where the "truth was clothed as right to free speech".

The Court further referred to videos of Justice Sharma which were circulated on social media wherein she was speaking in a college but a different narrative was shared.

The court said that the contemnor (Kejriwal) thought that his political stature would overawe the judiciary, however the court the not bow before any political person but only before the Constitution.

On Kejriwal's contemptuous act, the court said that it though that once recusal applications were decided the issue would become quiet. However, the judge said, that Kejriwal could havegone to Supreme Court but he did not do so.

It said that the tone and tenor of the remarks made by Kejriwal and others were notfair criticism of judicial order but rather they ran a campaign.

The judge said that it was "social media campaign" which openly questioned independence of the court, wherein allegations were made on political associations and ideology of this court.

The judge further said that it came to her notice that Kejriwal had published a letter addressed to the court on social media platform X, referring toKejriwal's letter boycotting the liquor case proceedingsbefore Justice Sharma.

The Court said that Kejriwal's conduct amounts to criminal contempt and if not taken care of will lead to anarchy. It further noted that similar letters were circulated byAAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak.

On AAP leaderSanjay Singh'stweet the court said,"Mr. Singh reshared Kejriwal's video. He stated that when a judge attends RSS event, no justice can be expected by such a judge".

The Court said that Singh's statements are a clear attempt to portray that the court is politically inclined to an ideology which amounts to criminal contempt.

Justice Sharma thereafter noted that a video of hers delivering a lecture in Varanasi was edited and falsely projected as a speech delivered for a political party to say that the judge receives promotions whenever it attends such events.

The judge noted that some references were made by her to Lord Shiva in her lecture, which were "deliberately projected as references to a party to falsely create a narrative in this court's political association in the minds of people".

The court said that the reference was to "Mahadev" (Lord Shiva) and significance attached to the city of Varanasi.

It observed that the edited video has created impression that the judge got her promotions and is under influence of "so and so". It said that fact check reports were also done in respect of video which were conveniently ignored by the contemnors. Even the college where the judge had delivered a lecture, also issued statements that the video was edited.

The court said that similar false claims were made by Sanjay Singh and a similar post was made byAAP leader Vinay Mishra, who also posted same video.

OnAAP leader Saurabh Bharadwaj'sacts the court said that he had held a press conference which was broadcasted on AAP's Youtube channel and shared on X account. This, the court said, was held one day after the matter was first listed before the court, and at that time there were no parties before the court when the posts were made.

The court further said that its order was not written with anger against any litigant, but has followed actions which selectively targeted the judiciary.

"These contempt proceedings are not outcome of anger. As an individual judge, this court also respects all litigants. Contemnors lowered integrity of the judiciary, maligned the judge and her family members. Court will not permit erosion of justice delivery system. Acts constitute criminal contempt as they were calculated to scandalise judiciary and intimidate judicial system," the court added.

The court emphasized that courtshave remained comfortable refuge of all citizens to raise their voices, the court was neither seeking sympathy nor demanding immunity from criticism.

Justice further said that she was not demanding an applause and she will continue to pass orders till the time people keep trying to harm the system.

"It would have been better had I stayed quiet, but that would have meant that I would not have tried to save the institution (Ye behtar hota ki mai chup rehti but uska mtlb hota ki is institution ko mai nahi bachaati)," the court added.

It also said that there is a fine line between fair criticism and attacking the judiciary which the court is fully capable of dealing with such situations. The court also said that respondents were conscious that a situation may arise that the court might draw contempt proceedings and transfer the case. It said that it left with two options–either continue remaining silent or to take contempt action.

At the outset the court said that the contempt proceedings were not borne in one day, nor are they beginning due to the judge's personal anguish.

The judge said,"The robe that i wear is not so fragile that few criticism will affect it". It further went on to observe that "videos and letters" released on social media were a "calculated campaign" directed not only against a sitting judge but also against judiciary.

It further said that incomplete letters and selective videos were circulated by contemnors who "crossed the line" and that even her family members were dragged in the controversy.

"It was not merely personal attack but a constitutional injury tend to shake the judicial institution which shocks the conscience of court. This court was not a political entity nor does a judge discharge duties with political considerations in mind," it added.

Justice Sharma said it was the act of calculatively scandalising the system and that a lie spoken a thousand times does not become a truth.

"No individual however powerful is not above the law,"it added.

On February 27, the trial courtdischargedall the 23 accused persons in the case, including political leaders Kejriwal, Sisodia and K Kavitha. The trial court had also severely criticised the CBI's investigation in the case.

It may be noted that the case had become politically controversial, as Kejriwal was arrested and remanded to the custody amidst the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. He was latergranted bailby the Supreme Court after 156 days of custody. AAP leader Manish Sisodia also spent 530 days in custody in the case.

The CBI's revision against the trial court's order was heard by Justice Sharma, who on March 9, prima facieobservedthat the trial court's observations were erroneous.

Later, Kejriwal and some other accused, including Sisodia, filed applicationsseeking recusalof Justice Sharma on ground of apprehension of bias. Last week, Justice Sharma,dismissedthe recusal applications and decided to hear the matter herself.

Thereafter, Kejriwal and Sisodia wrote to Justice Sharma stating that they areboycottingthe hearing before her and will not appear, either in person or through a counsel.