Delhi HC gives Kejriwal, AAP leaders four weeks to reply in contempt case

The Delhi High Court on Monday listed for November 16 the criminal contempt proceedings against AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and others over alleged “vilifying” social media posts targeting Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Arun Bhardwaj gave Kejriwal and the other respondents four weeks to file their replies in the matter. Kejriwal’s senior counsel told the court that he had not yet received the complete material on which the contempt proceedings were based.

The bench directed the registry to provide the material, which the counsel said was incomplete, and said the respondents could file their replies within four weeks.


A separate contempt petition filed by lawyer Ashok Chaitanya against Kejriwal and others, including AAP leader Gopal Rai and journalist Saurav Das, has also been listed for November 16. The petition alleges that they were part of an “orchestrated social media campaign” against Justice Sharma.

The proceedings stem from the excise policy case, in which Justice Sharma had initiated criminal contempt action in May against Kejriwal, Sisodia, Singh and other AAP leaders over their social media posts concerning her.

The court had issued notice to the politicians on May 19 and given them four weeks to respond. It had also appointed senior advocate Rajdipa Behura as amicus curiae.

Justice Sharma had initiated the contempt proceedings on May 14 against Kejriwal, Sisodia, Singh, Durgesh Pathak, Saurabh Bharadwaj and Vinay Mishra, among others. Contempt proceedings were also initiated against an X user, Devesh Vishwakarma.

In her order, Justice Sharma alleged that Kejriwal had orchestrated a campaign to vilify her on social media instead of pursuing legal remedies. She also said the CBI’s challenge to the discharge of the accused in the excise policy case would be heard by another bench.

The judge took exception to social media posts that allegedly attributed political allegiance or affiliation to her, as well as an “edited” video of a speech she delivered at an educational institution in Varanasi. She also raised concerns over the circulation of clips from court proceedings and what she described as an attempt to create a “parallel narrative”.

The contempt proceedings followed developments in the excise policy case. On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case.

After Justice Sharma rejected their applications seeking her recusal from hearing the CBI’s challenge to the discharge order on April 20, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak wrote to her saying they would not appear before her either personally or through a lawyer. They said they would instead follow “Mahatma Gandhi’s path of Satyagraha”.

The CBI’s challenge to the trial court’s discharge order was subsequently assigned to another bench following Justice Sharma’s contempt proceedings.

The High Court’s contempt action is centred on allegations concerning the social media posts and campaign against Justice Sharma; the respondents have been given an opportunity to file their replies.

(With inputs from PTI)