Holding that a “coordinated campaign” was run to vilify the judiciary after she refused to recuse herself from the Delhi excise policy case, Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Thursday initiated contempt proceedings against AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and several senior party leaders, before stepping aside from hearing the matter herself.
Justice Sharma said that continuing to hear the excise policy case could allow the accused to later claim that she was acting with prejudice against them.
“If I continue hearing the matter, they may say I hold a grudge against them. Therefore, this case will now go before another Bench,” the judge observed while recusing from the proceedings.
The contempt action has been initiated against AAP leaders Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra and Saurabh Bharadwaj over alleged defamatory statements, edited videos and social media posts targeting the judge in connection with the excise policy proceedings.
Justice Sharma clarified that her recusal should not be interpreted as acceptance of the allegations levelled by the AAP leaders or as a consequence of their earlier demand seeking her withdrawal from the case.
“This court had already rejected the recusal plea. But subsequent events have created another issue altogether. Let this remain a reminder that one pays a personal price for constitutional courage,” the court said.
The judge also made it clear that while she was stepping away from hearing the excise policy case, her earlier order dismissing the recusal applications of Kejriwal and others would continue to stand.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the court not to recuse and said litigants cannot be permitted to publicly attack judges after failing to secure favourable orders in court.
Mehta submitted that instead of approaching the Supreme Court against the recusal order, the accused had chosen to build a public narrative through social media campaigns and public statements questioning the court’s integrity.
He also dismissed allegations concerning the professional engagements of the judge’s children with the Central government, saying they were among hundreds of empanelled lawyers and had no connection whatsoever with the case.
“No politician in recent memory has stooped to this level where the institution itself is sought to be tarnished,” Mehta told the court.
Justice Sharma responded, “That is precisely why I have decided to initiate contempt action.”
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju also requested the judge to continue hearing the excise policy matter, arguing that the contempt proceedings could be separated. However, Justice Sharma declined the request.
“I know the nature of the litigant before me. Tomorrow again it will be argued that the judge hearing contempt against them is also hearing the main case and, therefore, they are victims,” the court observed.
The controversy traces back to April 20, when Justice Sharma dismissed applications moved by Kejriwal, Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak seeking her recusal from hearing the CBI’s challenge to the discharge of all accused in the excise policy case.
In Thursday’s order, the judge said that instead of challenging that decision before the Supreme Court, Kejriwal had taken the battle to social media.
“Inside the courtroom, respect for the institution was expressed. Outside the courtroom, however, a coordinated campaign was launched against this court,” Justice Sharma said.
The court noted that letters, edited videos and social media posts were widely circulated while the recusal issue was pending before it. According to the order, a parallel media narrative was allegedly created to question the impartiality of the judge and link the court with political interests.
Justice Sharma specifically referred to public remarks allegedly made by Kejriwal suggesting that ordinary citizens could not expect a ruling against the BJP or the Central government from the court. The judge held that such statements directly attributed political motives to the judiciary.
“If such conduct is permitted, any litigant dissatisfied with a judge can publicly accuse the court of bias and run campaigns against judges. That would lead to complete anarchy,” the order said.
The court also dealt with allegations arising from a video circulated by AAP leaders claiming that Justice Sharma had attended an RSS event. According to the judge, the clip was selectively edited from a speech delivered at a college event and distorted to create a false political narrative.
In its observations, the court said the campaign was not merely against an individual judge but amounted to an attack on judiciary.
“The judiciary survives not because of political power but because of public confidence. Any organised attempt to destroy that confidence strikes at the foundation of the institution,” the order said.
The judge also expressed concern over references made to her family despite them having no connection with the proceedings.
“My children had absolutely no role in the case, yet they were dragged into the controversy,” the court observed, adding that the attempt appeared aimed at creating psychological pressure on the judiciary.
Justice Sharma was hearing the CBI’s plea challenging a trial court order which had discharged Kejriwal and 22 others in the excise policy case earlier this year.
The case stems from allegations by the Central Bureau of Investigation that the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 was manipulated to favour select liquor traders through deliberate loopholes in the policy framework. The Enforcement Directorate later initiated a parallel money-laundering investigation under the PMLA.
