‘I refuse to be intimidated’: Delhi judge steps aside from excise policy case, initiates contempt action against Kejriwal

The Delhi High Court on Thursday (May 14) referred the excise policy case to the Chief Justice for transfer to another Bench after Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma initiated criminal contempt proceedings against former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and several Aam Aadmi Party leaders over alleged attempts to target the judiciary through social media campaigns, public statements and edited videos.

The Court clarified that it was not reversing its earlier order rejecting Kejriwal’s plea seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal from hearing the matter. However, it observed that judicial propriety required the excise policy case to be heard by another Bench now that contempt proceedings concerning allegations against the judge and the Court had been initiated.

“The recusal issue stands concluded,” the Court observed, adding that the present proceedings related to “subsequent acts allegedly amounting to criminal contempt”.

Justice Sharma initiated contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh, MLA Vinay Mishra and senior AAP leader Saurabh Bharadwaj, among others.

In a detailed order dictated in open court, Justice Sharma said the alleged statements, videos and online campaigns amounted to a “calculated campaign” aimed at scandalising the judiciary and lowering public confidence in the Court.

According to the Court, several public remarks attempted to portray the judge as politically aligned and questioned the Court’s impartiality in matters involving AAP leaders.

‘I refuse to be intimidated’: Justice Sharma

During the hearing, Justice Sharma made strong observations on attempts to influence judicial proceedings through public pressure and social media campaigns.

Also Read: Trump claims Xi offered help to open Hormuz, vowed China won’t arm Iran

“They wanted to intimidate me. Mujhe darana chahte the. I refuse to be intimidated,” the judge remarked in open court.

The Court warned that if such conduct became normalised, judges could begin deciding matters based on anticipated political backlash rather than legal principles, adding that “justice itself may become a casualty.”

Justice Sharma also referred to statements allegedly made by AAP leaders questioning her ideological neutrality, including remarks linking her to the BJP and RSS.

Referring to one such comment allegedly made by Saurabh Bharadwaj, the Court observed that attempts to publicly question a judge’s independence crossed the boundary between criticism and criminal contempt.

The Court further noted that some edited videos and online material allegedly distorted references made during a public speech related to Lord Shiva and the spiritual significance of Kashi in order to create a misleading political narrative.

Justice Sharma also indicated that separate proceedings could be initiated against certain YouTubers and online platforms accused of amplifying “contemptuous” content targeting the judiciary.

“We are in the process of collating materials,” the Court said.