This episode focuses on a pattern, the weaponisation of public pressure against state institutions, particularly the judiciary. When people with large social media followings launch coordinated campaigns to delegitimise sitting judges, manufacture or manipulate evidence, and publicly refuse to participate in the judicial process, they are not practising Satyagraha. They are systematically undermining public trust in institutions that safeguard ordinary people far more than politicians.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court today initiated criminal contempt proceedings against former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and several Aam Aadmi...
A court cannot be declared illegitimate after you have petitioned it and lost. That is forum shopping wrapped in a khadi shawl, not civil disobedience.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday, 23 April 2026, ordered the takedown of unauthorised video recordings of court proceedings from social media platforms in...
When a litigant attempts to make the justice delivery system vulnerable to unfounded allegations, they are targeting the credibility of the institution itself rather than merely a judge.
Justice Sharma stated that Kejriwal’s plea was based on “unfounded suspicions, conjectures and manufactured allegations” rather than any tangible conflict of interest on her part.
A political leader who uses the recusal doctrine today establishes a precedent that can be used against any judge, liberal or conservative, activist or deferential, by anyone with a grievance and a microphone.
AAP’s sidelining of Raghav Chadha signals a calculated move to contain a rising voice that risked unsettling its centralised power structure and challenge Arvind Kejriwal's supremacy.