A fresh plea before the Delhi High Court seeks contempt action against Arvind Kejriwal over an alleged coordinated campaign targeting Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, with the petition filed by advocate Ashok Chaitanya listed before Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja.
NEW DELHI: Days after Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma initiated criminal contempt proceedings against former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders over allegedly defamatory social media posts directed at her, a fresh plea has now been moved seeking contempt action against the AAP national convenor for allegedly spearheading a coordinated campaign against the judge.
The petition, filed by advocate Ashok Chaitanya after obtaining consent from Delhi government standing counsel (criminal) Sanjeev Bhandari, is scheduled to be heard by a bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja.
In the plea, which also seeks action against AAP leaders Saurabh Bhardwaj and Gopal Rai, along with a journalist, Chaitanya alleged that while Kejriwal’s application seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) appeal against the trial court order discharging him in the excise policy case was pending, a “concerted and orchestrated campaign” was launched on X through posts containing serious and baseless allegations.
The petition stated,
“The said content was not only published by one Respondent but was actively endorsed, republished, and amplified by the other Respondents, all of whom are persons of significant public standing and influence. The coordinated nature of the posts, their timing during the pendency of judicial proceedings, and the nature of the allegations clearly demonstrate a calculated attempt to lower the authority of the Court and interfere with the due course of justice,”
The standoff between Justice Sharma and Kejriwal traces back to February 27, when a trial court discharged Kejriwal and others in the excise policy case, following which the CBI challenged the order before the High Court. On March 9, Justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s direction seeking departmental action against a CBI officer and also deferred proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Kejriwal subsequently sought transfer of the matter from Justice Sharma’s bench, but the request was rejected by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya on March 13.
Later, on April 5, Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others requested Justice Sharma to recuse herself from the case. The judge dismissed the plea on April 20. A week later, on April 27, Kejriwal informed the Court through a letter that he would boycott the proceedings. Similar communications were later sent by Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak. On May 5, the Court decided to appoint senior advocates as amici curiae to represent the three leaders, though the proceedings were adjourned on three separate occasions thereafter.
On May 14, Justice Sharma initiated contempt proceedings and recused herself from both the CBI appeal and the contempt matter. She observed that the law did not permit a judge who had initiated contempt proceedings over allegedly defamatory and contemptuous social media content concerning a pending matter to continue hearing that case. However, she clarified that her earlier April 20 order declining recusal in the excise policy matter would remain in force.
In her order, the judge stated that after declining to recuse herself, Kejriwal adopted a path of “vilification” and “intimidation.” The Court further noted that instead of challenging the order before the Supreme Court, Kejriwal chose to boycott the proceedings through a letter and circulated a video in which, according to the judge, false allegations were made against her.
On May 19, the division bench of Justices Chawla and Dudeja issued notice in the contempt proceedings. In a related development, another bench directed the CBI to issue fresh notices to Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak informing them that the agency’s appeal against the trial court order discharging Kejriwal and 22 others in the Delhi excise policy case had been reassigned to that bench.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
