The Delhi High Court on Monday granted four weeks to Aam Aadmi Party leaders, including former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, to submit their responses to a criminal contempt action initiated over critical social media posts directed at a sitting judge, scheduling the next hearing for November 16.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Arun Bhardwaj directed the court registry to furnish the complete case records to the defence after senior counsel appearing for Kejriwal submitted that the respondents had not yet received all relevant documents. The judges instructed that any replies on behalf of the leaders must be placed on record within four weeks of receiving the complete material.
Parallel Petitions Listed for Mid-November
The division bench also fixed November 16 to hear a connected contempt petition moved by advocate Ashok Chaitanya. That plea seeks contempt action against Kejriwal alongside senior party leader Gopal Rai and journalist Saurav Das, alleging their involvement in a coordinated public campaign against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
Both matters stem from proceedings initiated earlier this year following public commentary surrounding the Delhi liquor policy litigation.
Origins of the Criminal Contempt Action
The initial contempt action was initiated on May 14 by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma against Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, Member of Parliament Sanjay Singh, party leaders Saurabh Bharadwaj, Durgesh Pathak, and Vinay Mishra, as well as social media user Devesh Vishwakarma.
On May 19, the High Court formally issued notice on the suo motu case, giving the respondents four weeks to submit their answers, and appointed senior advocate Rajdipa Behura as amicus curiae to assist the court.
In her referral order, Justice Sharma stated that Kejriwal had led a deliberate public campaign against her rather than seeking recourse through established judicial channels. She took strong exception to digital posts that attributed partisan political affiliations to her, including an altered video clip of a lecture she delivered at an institution in Varanasi.
The judge also noted the widespread dissemination of courtroom footage, remarking that efforts were being made to build a competing public narrative. She observed that failing to take cognizance in such circumstances would represent a concession to an influential litigant rather than judicial restraint. Justice Sharma subsequently clarified that the Central Bureau of Investigation’s challenge to the dismissal of the excise case would be reassigned to a different bench.
Dispute Over Trial Court Discharge and Recusal
The controversy traces back to February 27, when a trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 21 other individuals in the excise policy case, concluding that the prosecution’s case lacked merit and failed judicial scrutiny.
When the Central Bureau of Investigation challenged that discharge order before the High Court, the AAP leaders moved formal applications requesting Justice Sharma to recuse herself from hearing the agency’s petition.
Following the dismissal of their recusal requests on April 20, Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak addressed a joint letter to the judge announcing that they would refrain from appearing before her court, either in person or through legal representatives, and would instead adopt a course of non-cooperation framed around Satyagraha.
