New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday initiated criminal contempt proceedings against former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and several other Aam Aadmi Party leaders, observing that a “coordinated campaign” had been carried out to scandalise the judiciary in connection with proceedings related to the excise policy case.
Passing a detailed order, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that social media posts, videos and public statements made against her after she refused to recuse herself from hearing the matter had crossed the line between fair criticism and criminal contempt.
“The contemnors did not merely express disagreement but carried out a campaign of vilification not only against this sitting judge but the entire judiciary,” Justice Sharma observed.
The Delhi High Court issued contempt notices to Kejriwal, former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh, and AAP leaders Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra and Durgesh Pathak.
Justice Sharma stated that while judges are trained to accept fair criticism and dissent, “remaining silent is not judicial restraint” when there is a calculated attempt to scandalise the judiciary.
“This court is not demanding sympathy or immunity from criticism. But if attempts are made to damage the institution of the judiciary through coordinated campaigns, the court has the power and duty to act,” the judge said.
The High Court noted that while criticism of judicial orders is permissible, there is “a very thin line” between fair criticism and contempt of court.
“Any ordinary citizen may criticize any judge or order. This does not constitute contempt. However, there is a distinction between fair criticism and running a campaign to portray a judge as biased,” the court observed.
Justice Sharma further remarked that Kejriwal, instead of challenging the order refusing recusal before the Supreme Court, chose to “carry the matter to social media” by circulating letters and videos questioning her impartiality.
“He could have gone to the Supreme Court. Instead, he publicly circulated letters and videos alleging political bias and suggesting that justice could not be expected from this court,” the judge said.
According to the High Court, such conduct amounted to an attempt to create public distrust in the judiciary and “would lead to anarchy” if left unchecked.
Justice Sharma also said members of her family had been dragged into the controversy as part of a “psychological coercion” campaign intended to pressure her into recusing herself from the case.
“I refuse to be intimidated,” the judge said, adding that remaining silent would have amounted to “surrender”.
Clarifying that the contempt proceedings were not motivated by personal anger or grievance, Justice Sharma said the action was necessary to protect the institution of the judiciary.
“Judges may come and go, but the institution of justice will remain. The judiciary in India shall remain fearless,” she said.
Following the initiation of contempt proceedings, Justice Sharma recused herself from further hearing the excise policy case, stating that the matter should be heard by another Bench to avoid any perception of bias.
“It could be that if I keep hearing this case, Arvind Kejriwal and other people might think that I have a grudge against him. That's why I've thought that this particular case will be heard by some other Bench,” she said.
Earlier in the day, the Delhi High Court had indicated that it would initiate contempt proceedings after “extremely vilifying and defamatory” material was allegedly circulated against the judge hearing the CBI revision petition in the excise policy case.
Justice Sharma had also considered appointing senior advocates as amici curiae after Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak abstained from proceedings following the dismissal of their recusal applications.
The trial court, in a judgment spanning more than 1,100 paragraphs, had discharged all accused persons, including Kejriwal and Sisodia, holding that the material on record suggested the now-scrapped excise policy was the outcome of a consultative and deliberative process. The court had further said the prosecution failed to establish any overarching conspiracy.
In its revision plea before the Delhi High Court, the Central Bureau of Investigation alleged that the excise policy framed by the then AAP-led Delhi government was manipulated to favour select liquor traders in exchange for kickbacks.
On March 9, Justice Sharma had issued notice on the CBI’s plea challenging the discharge order and had also stayed adverse remarks made by the trial court against the investigating agency and a CBI officer.
With IANS inputs