A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja directed all concerned leaders to submit their responses within four weeks in the contempt matter. The court’s action follows observations made by Justice Sharma, who took cognisance of social media posts allegedly shared by Arvind Kejriwal and other AAP leaders that questioned the conduct of the judge in the excise policy proceedings.
The controversy is rooted in the wider litigation surrounding the Delhi liquor policy case, in which Kejriwal and 22 other accused were discharged by the trial court. The trial court had also made strong observations criticising the Central Bureau of Investigation investigation in the matter. Subsequently, the Central Bureau of Investigation challenged the discharge order before the Delhi High Court.
Following these developments, Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and other accused persons filed an application seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the case, alleging bias. Justice Sharma, however, rejected the recusal request, describing the allegations as defamatory, and proceeded to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the Aam Aadmi Party leadership. She had earlier declined the recusal applications filed by Kejriwal and others.
The situation escalated further when Kejriwal and Sisodia publicly stated that they would not appear before the judge during the ongoing hearings. In a subsequent procedural development, Justice Sharma transferred the Central Bureau of Investigation matter to another bench.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, the court also directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ensure that respondents, including Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Durgesh Pathak, are duly informed about the transfer of the case and are advised regarding their appearance if they choose to participate. Additionally, the court instructed the Aam Aadmi Party leaders to file their response to the Central Bureau of Investigation’s appeal against the discharge order by Monday.
The matter now proceeds under heightened judicial scrutiny, marking a sharp escalation in the legal confrontation between the judiciary and senior political leaders over allegations of judicial conduct and public commentary.
About The Author
Comment List