Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court on Wednesday recused himself from hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking contempt action against AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others. The petition alleges the unauthorized recording and distribution of court proceedings involving the former Chief Minister.
The PIL, filed by advocate Vaibhav Singh, seeks contempt proceedings following the alleged uploading and sharing of video clips from a court hearing on April 13, 2026. The hearing in question concerned Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the liquor policy case. The petitioner argues that such unauthorized sharing violates high court rules and undermines judicial independence.
The controversy stems from the circulation of video recordings showing Kejriwal’s appearance before the court. According to the PIL, several AAP leaders and opposition figures, including Congress leader Digvijay Singh, “intentionally and deliberately recorded and circulated” these videos on social media platforms.
The petitioner claims this was part of a “conspiracy” and “dirty strategy” to “malign the image of the court in the eyes of the public.” On April 15, Singh filed a formal complaint with the High Court Registrar General regarding the matter.
The matter was listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia. However, Justice Karia opted to recuse himself from the proceedings.
“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,” the court directed.
While the court did not explicitly state the reason for recusal in the order, it is noted that Justice Karia, prior to his elevation to the bench, was a partner at a prominent law firm where he represented Meta Platforms—one of the respondents in the current PIL. Other respondents named in the petition include the High Court administration, X (formerly Twitter), and Google.
The petitioner, Vaibhav Singh, urged the court to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the alleged unauthorized recording. He submitted that the high court rules strictly prohibit the recording of proceedings without authorization. The PIL also prayed for a direction to social media giants to remove the “contemptuous” content from their platforms.
During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner requested that the matter be assigned to another bench that is already dealing with a similar issue.
This development follows a related ruling on Monday, where Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to recuse herself from the liquor policy case. She observed that a litigant cannot be allowed to “judge a judge” without material evidence and that judges should not recuse themselves simply to satisfy “unfounded apprehension of bias.”
The contempt PIL is now scheduled to be heard by a different bench on Thursday.
