Justice Sharma said the former Delhi chief minister "orchestrated a calculated campaign of vilification" against her on social media instead of pursuing his legal remedies.
Key Points
- The court took exception to social media posts attributing 'political allegiance' to the judge and circulating a misleading video.
- AAP leaders accused of creating a 'parallel narrative' and attempting to intimidate the judge.
- The judge clarified she was transferring the case to another bench due to the contempt proceedings.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta criticised Kejriwal's actions and called for an SOP to deal with such litigants.
Delhi high court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Thursday initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Aam Aadmi Party leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bhardwaj and others over their "vilifying" social media posts against her in relation to the excise policy case.
Justice Sharma said the former Delhi chief minister "orchestrated a calculated campaign of vilification" against her on social media instead of pursuing his legal remedies and clarified that the CBI's petition against the discharge of all accused persons would now be taken up by another bench.
Contempt proceedings initiated
In the pronouncement made in the court late this evening, which lasted over an hour, she also initiated criminal contempt proceedings against AAP's Durgesh Pathak and Vinay Mishra, and an 'X' user.
"This court is satisfied that the acts of the proposed contemnors prima facie constitute criminal contempt within the meaning of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, as they were calculated to scandalise the court, lower the authority of the institution of justice, interfere with the administration of justice and intimidate the independent exercise of judicial function," Justice Sharma said.
Objections to social media posts
The judge took exception to several social media posts by the proposed contemnors that attributed "political allegiance" and "affiliation" to her and allegedly targeted her by posting a misleading "edited" video of a speech she gave at an educational institution in Varanasi.
She also noted the wide circulation of clips from the court proceedings in the case, stating that the proposed contemnors were creating a "parallel narrative," and that "remaining silent" was not judicial restraint but a "surrender before a powerful litigant".
Accusations of intimidation
The judge asserted that AAP leaders "consciously chose" to "intimidate" her and crossed a line by dragging her children, who had no connection to the case, into their "calculated" campaign.
She further said that the letters written by Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak boycotting the proceedings before her after she rejected their plea seeking her recusal, which were also published on social media, were contemptuous in nature.
"Arvind Kejriwal orchestrated a calculated campaign of vilification and intimidation. Instead of challenging the order of recusal in accordance with law before the Supreme Court, he sought to destroy the reputation of a sitting judge i.e. me and the institution," Justice Sharma said.
"The utterances by the proposed contemnors in the form of videos and letters did not merely express disagreement with a judicial order, rather they lead to one conclusion that it was a calculated campaign of vilification in the digital space directed against not only this court as an individual sitting judge but against the entire institution of the judiciary," she added.
Transfer of the case
Justice Sharma said that while the court was not shying away from criticism, any deliberate attempt to lower the court's authority can't be permitted under the guise of free speech.
She clarified that she was not "recusing" herself but was only transferring the case to another bench since she has initiated the contempt proceedings and Kejriwal and others may later allege a "personal grudge".
Asserting that she stood by the earlier order refusing to recuse herself in the case, Justice Sharma said that "subsequent events" gave rise to a "separate and independent issue".
"I will list this before the Chief Justice so that this case can be heard by another bench," she ordered.
Solicitor general's response
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, thanked Justice Sharma for upholding the institution's dignity and also urged her to continue hearing the matter.
Mehta said the judge's children were "one of the 600-700" central government panel lawyers and were not associated with him.
He also accused Kejriwal of "theatrics at Rajghat", remarking, "This is the first time any political person has stooped this low."
The solicitor general also said an SOP must be drawn to deal with such litigants.
Earlier in the day, Justice Sharma said she "cannot stay silent" and would initiate contempt proceedings against "some" of the discharged accused in the liquor policy case for posting "vilifying and defamatory" material against her.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case, as it ruled that the case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
After Justice Sharma dismissed their applications seeking her recusal in the case on April 20, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak wrote a letter to Justice Sharma, stating they would not appear before her personally or through a lawyer and would follow "Mahatma Gandhi's path of Satyagraha".
