The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted four weeks to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, and several others to submit their responses in a criminal contempt proceeding over online posts targeting Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
A division bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja issued the order after defense counsel stated that they had not yet received the case materials forming the basis of the contempt action. The bench instructed the court registry to supply the relevant documents to all respondents and fixed the next hearing for September 21.
Court Directs Registry To Supply Case Documents
During the proceedings, senior legal counsel representing former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal informed the court that the defense team was still awaiting the necessary documentation. Similar submissions were made by attorneys representing the other parties named in the matter.
In response, the bench ordered the court registry to immediately provide the required material to the respondents before granting them the four-week period to submit written replies.
The court also extended the four-week response window to AAP leader Gopal Rai and journalist Saurav Das regarding a separate contempt petition alleging their involvement in an organized social media campaign against Justice Sharma.
Allegations Of Coordinated Campaign On Social Media
The contempt proceedings originate from action initiated by Justice Sharma on May 14 against key AAP figures—including Kejriwal, Sisodia, Singh, Durgesh Pathak, Saurabh Bharadwaj, and Vinay Mishra—as well as X user Devesh Vishwakarma. A separate contempt plea was subsequently filed by advocate Ashok Chaitanya.
The court had previously issued formal notices on May 19, giving the politicians four weeks to respond while appointing senior advocate Rajdipa Behura as amicus curiae to assist with the case.
In her initial contempt order, Justice Sharma stated that Kejriwal had conducted a calculated campaign of vilification against her on social media platforms instead of pursuing standard legal remedies. The judge noted that several online posts attributed political affiliations to her and pointed to the dissemination of a misleadingly edited video of a speech she had delivered at an educational institution in Varanasi.
Justice Sharma also highlighted the widespread sharing of recorded courtroom proceedings, observing that the proposed contemnors were attempting to build an alternative public narrative. She added that maintaining judicial silence under such circumstances would amount to surrendering to an influential litigant rather than exercising judicial restraint.
Discharge In Excise Policy Case And Judicial Recusal
The contempt case stems from broader developments surrounding the Delhi excise policy investigation. On February 27, a trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 21 co-accused, ruling that the Central Bureau of Investigation’s case could not withstand judicial scrutiny and was entirely discredited.
Following the discharge, the agency appealed the decision. After Justice Sharma denied applications seeking her recusal from hearing the CBI’s petition on April 20, Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak issued a joint letter declaring that they would refrain from appearing before her in person or through legal representatives, framing their decision as a form of non-violent resistance.
Justice Sharma subsequently recused herself from hearing the CBI appeal, transferring the matter to Justice Manoj Jain.
