Delhi HC grants AAP leaders four weeks to respond in contempt case over posts against Justice Sharma

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday gave four weeks to senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, including Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, to file their responses in a criminal contempt case. The case was initiated against them over social media posts directed at Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja heard the matter. Senior counsel appearing for Mr. Kejriwal informed the court that the material forming the basis of the contempt case had not been provided to him. Lawyers for the other respondents made similar submissions.

The Bench directed the High Court registry to supply the relevant material to all respondents. It recorded that the replies should be filed within four weeks. The court also granted four weeks to AAP leader Gopal Rai and journalist Saurav Das to respond to a separate petition seeking contempt action against them for their alleged role in an "orchestrated social media campaign" against Justice Sharma.

The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on September 21. The court will take up the case for further consideration after the replies are filed.

The criminal contempt proceedings were initiated suo motu by Justice Sharma on May 14. She ordered action against Mr. Kejriwal, Mr. Sisodia, Mr. Singh, and other AAP leaders including Durgesh Pathak, Saurabh Bharadwaj and Vinay Mishra, as well as X user Devesh Vishwakarma. In her order, she described their social media posts as "vilifying" her in connection with the Delhi excise policy case.

On May 19, the High Court issued notice to the leaders and gave them four weeks to reply. Senior advocate Rajdipa Behura was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court.

Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, criminal contempt is defined as the publication of any matter or the doing of any act which scandalises or tends to scandalise the authority of a court. The High Court is examining whether the social media posts in question amounted to such contempt. The outcome of the case will depend on whether the court finds that the posts constituted interference with the administration of justice.

In the May 14 order, Justice Sharma observed that Mr. Kejriwal, while he was Delhi Chief Minister, had "orchestrated a calculated campaign of vilification" against her on social media instead of pursuing his legal remedies. She also noted that some posts attributed "political allegiance" and "affiliation" to her, and that an "edited" video of a speech she gave at an educational institution in Varanasi was shared with misleading intent. She expressed concern over the wide circulation of clips from the court proceedings in the related case, stating that the proposed contemnors were creating a "parallel narrative". She added that "remaining silent" in the face of such attacks was not judicial restraint but a "surrender before a powerful litigant".

The case is linked to the Delhi excise policy matter. On February 27, a trial court discharged Mr. Kejriwal, Mr. Sisodia and 21 other accused, ruling that the case was "wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny". The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has challenged the discharge in the Delhi High Court.

After Justice Sharma dismissed the applications seeking her recusal from hearing the CBI's petition on April 20, Mr. Kejriwal, Mr. Sisodia and Mr. Pathak wrote a letter to her, stating that they would not appear before her personally or through a lawyer and would follow "Mahatma Gandhi's path of Satyagraha". Subsequently, Justice Sharma released the CBI's petition from her court, and the matter is now listed before Justice Manoj Jain.

Lawyer Ashok Chaitanya has also filed a separate contempt petition in connection with the same allegations.