Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court today initiated criminal contempt proceedings against former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and several Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders for their comments on her for not accepting Kejriwal’s plea seeking her recusal from hearing the excise police case. The court mentioned defamatory letters, edited videos, and vilifying social media posts directed against the judge in connection with the high-profile Delhi Excise Policy case as reasons for the contempt proceedings.
The court also decided to hand over the excise policy case to a different bench of the Delhi High Court, adding that it is not recusal but judicial discipline.
The proceedings have been initiated against Kejriwal, along with AAP leaders Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra, and Durgesh Pathak.
Justice Sharma, who is presiding over matters related to the excise policy case, made strong observations during the hearing. She said, “Contemnor Arvind Kejriwal orchestrated a campaign of vilification. Instead of challenging order before SC but he dragged the order to social media. When video of judge is selectively edited, it shows malice. He wanted to ridicule me. The message conveyed by the campaign by contemnors and specially Mr. Kejriwal was that if a judge doesnt conform to expectations of political force, judge will be vilified. If such conduct is unchecked and judges are threatened, justice will become a casualty”.
#Breaking
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) May 14, 2026
Delhi High Court initiates contempt of court proceedings against Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj and Durgesh Pathak for their comments on Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
Justice Sharma says their conduct falls under the definition of…
She clarified that while any ordinary citizen is free to criticise a judge or a judicial order, there is a clear distinction between legitimate criticism and the conduct of the contemnors. “Such comments cannot be permitted under the guise of free speech. Accordingly this court is satisfied that the acts of contemnors constitute criminal contempt of court,” the judge stated.
The court added, “He could have gone to Supreme Court but he did not do so. Not only him, but also other members, spokespersons also repeated the allegations which were already rejected by court. The tone and tenor were not fair criticism of judicial order. They ran a campaign. Social media campaign openly questioned independence of this court. Allegations were made on political associations and ideology of this court.”
She further emphasised that only she could initiate contempt proceedings in this matter, declaring, “Is case ko to koi bhi sun sakta hai but contempt sirf main hi draw kar sakti thi. Maine ye decide kiya ki is tareeke ke log jo judiciary ke khilaaf aese campaign chalate hain unke against action ho.”
The judge addressed specific social media posts by the respondents. Referring to allegations linking her to the BJP, she remarked: “Jab unhone kaha ki justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ka BJP se rishta kya kehlata hai to mera jawab unko ye hai ki ye contempt of court hai.” The judge said, “By publicly asking what relationship a sitting judge of HC has with a party is not fair criticism of judicial proceedings. This is contemptuous. I hold you to contempt.”
The court said, “Contemnor Arvind Kejriwal orchestrated a campaign of vilification. Instead of challenging order before SC but he dragged the order to social media. When video of judge is selectively edited, it shows malice. He wanted to ridicule me. The message conveyed by the campaign by contemnors and specially Mr. Kejriwal was that if a judge doesnt conform to expectations of political force, judge will be vilified. If such conduct is unchecked and judges are threatened, justice will become a casualty.”
Speaking to one of the contemnors, she said: “Vinay Mishra, I am taking contempt of court action against you and that is my answer to your post.”
Such comments cannot be permitted under the guise of free speech. Accordingly this court is satisifed that the acts of contemnors contitute criminal contempt of court: Justice Sharma.
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) May 14, 2026
The court also took note of selectively edited and circulated videos, including footage from a college event, which were allegedly used to build a “different narrative” on social media. Justice Sharma observed that Kejriwal had “carried the matter to social media,” where “truth was clothed as the right to free speech.”
Today’s order came after a PIL was filed before the Delhi High Court last month seeking contempt action against Kejriwal and other AAP leaders for allegedly recording and circulating unauthorised videos of court proceedings before Justice Sharma.
The judge also said that the court is not taking back its verdict rejecting Kejriwal’s recusal application. However, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma added that the excise policy case will be heard by a different bench. She said that as she has drawn contempt proceedings, it is appropriate that the matter is transferred to some other judge.
Justice Sharma added that she will list the matter before CJ so that case can be heard by another judge. SGI Tushar Mehta requested that the matter be heard by Justice Sharma only. But the judge said that as per rules, if a judge draws contempt proceedings in a case, that judge can’t hear the main case.
“This court will work fearlessly without this malicious campaign which is going against me. It doesn’t matter,” the judge said. She clarified that this decision is not recusal, but a judicial discipline.
When ASG SV Raju pleaded her to hear the main matter, and transfer the contempt case to different judge, the judge said, “As a judge i know what kind of litigant is before me. The litigant will again say this. Tomorrow he will say he is a victim because the person drawing the contempt is against him and hearing the matter.”
The court further said that the court may pass another order against YouTubers who have been part of the campaign and are sharing contemptuous materials against her. She said, “We are in the process of collating materials.”
