The Delhi High Court issued notice to journalist Saurav Das and Gopal Rai in a contempt petition alleging a coordinated campaign against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while clubbing the matter with ongoing suo motu contempt proceedings involving other AAP leaders.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court issued notice to journalist Saurav Das and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Gopal Rai in a criminal contempt of court petition filed against them by a lawyer. The petition alleged that they were involved in running a “coordinate” campaign aimed at targeting Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja, however, did not issue notice to two other respondents AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and AAP leader Saurabh Bharadwaj because both are already facing contempt proceedings in a suo motu case initiated by the High Court on the same issue concerning Justice Sharma.
Both contempt matters the suo motu case and the lawyer’s petition will now be heard together. The Court also appointed Senior Advocate Rajdipa Behura as Amicus Curiae to assist in the proceedings.
The petition against Das and other AAP leaders was filed by advocate Ashok Chaitanya, after obtaining consent from the Delhi government’s Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal), Sanjeev Bhandari.
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:
According to the plea, Kejriwal, Das, Bharadwaj and Rai “initiated a concerted and orchestrated campaign on the social media platform X publishing and amplifying content containing serious, unfounded and scandalous allegations against Justice Sharma.
The plea said,
“The impugned posts alleged, inter alia, a supposed conflict of interest, bias, and impropriety, based on misleading assertions relating to the professional engagements of the Hon’ble Judge’s family members,”
The plea further argued that the coordinated nature of the posts, including their timing during ongoing judicial proceedings, and the substance of the allegations reflected what it described as an intentional effort to undermine the authority of the court and affect the due course of justice.
As per the petition,
“It is submitted that the allegations fanning the basis of the impugned posts are factually incorrect and deliberately misleading. The empanelment of advocates by governmental bodies is a routine process based on merit and professional competence. The attempt to attribute impropriety to such empanelment is wholly baseless and intended only to malign the integrity of the Hon’ble Judge.”
The lawyer also argued that Kejriwal’s tweet stating that he would be boycotting the proceedings before Justice Sharma amounts to contempt. The suo motu contempt matter against Kejriwal and other AAP leaders was initiated on May 14.
Earlier, Kejriwal, along with Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Pathak, had sought Justice Sharma’s recusal in the excise policy case involving Kejriwal and other AAP leaders. Justice Sharma rejected their recusal application on April 20.
In the recusal order, the judge observed that:
“A politician cannot be allowed to sow seeds of mistrust and that the application seeking her recusal amounted to putting the judiciary on trial.”
The judge’s observation followed social media posts appearing before and after the April 20 order questioning her, which later led her to initiate contempt proceedings.
The contempt matter is being heard by the bench headed by Justice Navin Chawla.
Factual Backgrounds:
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