Delhi High Court Initiates Criminal Contempt Against Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra & Saurabh Bharadwaj

Justice Sharma passed the order after taking note of note various social media posts and videos shared by the respondents in connection with the recusal proceedings.

For context, the AAP leaders, who are respondents in the excise policy case, had moved applications seeking recusal of Justice Sharma. The court had however rejected these applications and declared that it will continue to hear the matter.

Today the Court was to hear CBI's petition challenging the discharge of all accused persons in the corruption case related to the alleged liquor policy and was set to pass an order appointing three senior advocates as amicus curiae to represent Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak— who had chosen to boycott proceedings before Justice Sharma. However when the matter was taken up in the afternoon Justice Sharma told the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta that extremely defamatory and vilifying content was posted against by some respondents which had come to the court's notice, wherein it had decided to initiate contempt action.

Thereafter in the evening Justice Sharma said that the court while deciding recusal application, expects a controversy. However it was only after the recusal pronouncement, that the court came to know that coordinated social media campaign was done. It was thereafter that the social media posts circulated content also came to notice of court.

Justice Sharma also noted that during hearing of recusal application some respondents were sharing content which were widely circulated.

The judge thus said that its duty is to the Constitution and she could have chosen to stay quiet, but her staying quiet is being understood as "weakness" which is not true.

On the actions of Arvind Kejriwal the court said:

"Contemnor Arvind Kejriwal orchestrated a campaign of vilification. Instead of challenging order before SC but he dragged the order to social media. When video of judge is selectively edited, it shows malice. He wanted to ridicule me. The message conveyed by the campaign by contemnors and specially Mr. Kejriwal was that if a judge doesnt conform to expectations of political force, judge will be vilified. If such conduct is unchecked and judges are threatened, justice will become a casualty".

The judge said that every courtroom is respected not because of its position but because it functions for the citizens, adding that judges command respect because they adjudicate fearlessly.

"They wanted to intimidate me...I REFUSE TO BE INTIMIDATED," she added.

Justice Sharma said that any ordinary person can criticize a judge's order and that is not contempt but there is a distinction between criticism and what the Contemnors did. She said that Kejriwal carried the matter to social media where the "truth was clothed as right to free speech".

The Court further referred to videos of Justice Sharma which were circulated on social media wherein she was speaking in a college but a different narrative was shared.

The court said that the contemnor (Kejriwal) thought that his political stature would overawe the judiciary, however the court the not bow before any political person but only before the Constitution.

On Kejriwal's contemptuous act, the court said that it though that once recusal applications were decided the issue would become quiet. However, the judge said, that Kejriwal could have gone to Supreme Court but he did not do so.

It said that the tone and tenor of the remarks made by Kejriwal and others were not fair criticism of judicial order but rather they ran a campaign.

The judge said that it was "social media campaign" which openly questioned independence of the court, wherein allegations were made on political associations and ideology of this court.

The judge further said that it came to her notice that Kejriwal had published a letter addressed to the court on social media platform X, referring to Kejriwal's letter boycotting the liquor case proceedings before Justice Sharma.

"He (Kejriwal) also issued a video. Another post was published containing a video of Kejriwal informing public about his decision and reiterating allegations against this court.The statements are not bona fide expressions. Kejriwal has attributed political influence to this court. He stated that aam aadmi (common man) can't believe that this court can do justice. How did he assume authority to speak on behalf of citizens of this country? Such statement is not confined to questioning judicial order but casting aspersions against me in the eyes of public

Such statements amounts to scandalising the court in the eyes of public and lowering its integrity. If Kejriwal's conduct is viewed in letter's context, it shows that if litigant cannot like a judge, he can refuse to participate in proceedings and circulate letters".

The Court said that Kejriwal's conduct amounts to criminal contempt and if not taken care of will lead to anarchy. It further noted that similar letters were circulated by AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak.

On AAP leader Sanjay Singh's tweet the court said, "Mr. Singh reshared Kejriwal's video. He stated that when a judge attends RSS event, no justice can be expected by such a judge".

The Court said that Singh's statements are a clear attempt to portray that the court is politically inclined to an ideology which amounts to criminal contempt.

Justice Sharma thereafter noted that a video of hers delivering a lecture in Varanasi was edited and falsely projected as a speech delivered for a political party to say that the judge receives promotions whenever it attends such events.

"The post was published and it has 1 Lakh views and 3,000 reposts. The video pertains to a lecture in Varanasi university during a workshop. Video shared by the user Mr. Vishwakarna was selectively cropped. Only 59 second clip was extracted from original video which was posted on Facebook account of the university," the judge said.

The judge noted that some references were made by her to Lord Shiva in her lecture, which were "deliberately projected as references to a party to falsely create a narrative in this court's political association in the minds of people".

The court said that the reference was to "Mahadev" (Lord Shiva) and significance attached to the city of Varanasi.

It observed that the edited video has created impression that the judge got her promotions and is under influence of "so and so". It said that fact check reports were also done in respect of video which were conveniently ignored by the contemnors. Even the college where the judge had delivered a lecture, also issued statements that the video was edited.

The court said that similar false claims were made by Sanjay Singh and a similar post was made by AAP leader Vinay Mishra, who also posted same video.

Referring to another post by Mishra the court said: "This order is being passed in the court of law and not in the BJP headquarters. Vinay Mishra, I am taking contempt action against you and that is my answer".

On AAP leader Saurabh Bharadwaj's acts the court said that he had held a press conference which was broadcasted on AAP's Youtube channel and shared on X account. This, the court said, was held one day after the matter was first listed before the court, and at that time there were no parties before the court when the posts were made.

"During the conference, he (Bharadwaj) said 'what relationship does BJP have with High Court judge' ('BJP ka High Court judge se kya rishta hain'). He publicly questioned integrity and impartiality of this court. By publicly asking what relationship a sitting judge of High Court has with a party is not fair criticism of judicial proceedings. This is contemptuous. I hold you to contempt" the court said.

The court further said that its order was not written with anger against any litigant, but has followed actions which selectively targeted the judiciary.

"These contempt proceedings are not outcome of anger. As an individual judge, this court also respects all litigants. Contemnors lowered integrity of the judiciary, maligned the judge and her family members. Court will not permit erosion of justice delivery system. Acts constitute criminal contempt as they were calculated to scandalise judiciary and intimidate judicial system," the court added.

The court emphasized that courts have remained comfortable refuge of all citizens to raise their voices, the court was neither seeking sympathy nor demanding immunity from criticism.

Justice further said that she was not demanding an applause and she will continue to pass orders till the time people keep trying to harm the system.

"It would have been better had I stayed quiet, but that would have meant that I would not have tried to save the institution (Ye behtar hota ki mai chup rehti but uska mtlb hota ki is institution ko mai nahi bachaati)," the court added.

It also said that there is a fine line between fair criticism and attacking the judiciary which the court is fully capable of dealing with such situations. The court also said that respondents were conscious that a situation may arise that the court might draw contempt proceedings and transfer the case. It said that it left with two options–either continue remaining silent or to take contempt action.

At the outset the court said that the contempt proceedings were not borne in one day, nor are they beginning due to the judge's personal anguish.

The judge said, "The robe that i wear is not so fragile that few criticism will affect it". It further went on to observe that "videos and letters" released on social media were a "calculated campaign" directed not only against a sitting judge but also against judiciary.

It further said that incomplete letters and selective videos were circulated by contemnors who "crossed the line" and that even her family members were dragged in the controversy.

"It was not merely personal attack but a constitutional injury tend to shake the judicial institution which shocks the conscience of court. This court was not a political entity nor does a judge discharge duties with political considerations in mind," it added.

Justice Sharma said it was the act of calculatively scandalising the system and that a lie spoken a thousand times does not become a truth.

"No individual however powerful is not above the law," it added.

On February 27, the trial court discharged all the 23 accused persons in the case, including political leaders Kejriwal, Sisodia and K Kavitha. The trial court had also severely criticised the CBI's investigation in the case.