Delhi HC Initiates Criminal Contempt Against Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra, Durgesh Pathak & Saurabh Bharadwaj

Delhi High Court's Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Thursday (May 14) initiated criminal contempt proceedings against AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra, Durgesh Pathak and Saurabh Bharadwaj in the excise policy case noting that they had posted defamatory, contemptuous and vilifying things against her.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 publicSuch statements amounts to scandalising the court in the eyes of public and lowering its integrity. If Kejriwal's conduct is viewed in letter's...

Delhi HC Initiates Criminal Contempt Against Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra, Durgesh Pathak & Saurabh Bharadwaj

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Delhi HC Initiates Criminal Contempt Against Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra, Durgesh Pathak & Saurabh Bharadwaj

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers