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.&nbsp;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.&nbsp;“The recusal issue stands concluded,” the Court observed, adding that the present proceedings related to “subsequent acts allegedly amounting to criminal contempt”.&nbsp;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.&nbsp;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.&nbsp;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.<h2>‘I refuse to be intimidated’: Justice Sharma</h2>During the hearing, Justice Sharma made strong observations on attempts to influence judicial proceedings through public pressure and social media campaigns.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-claims-xi-offered-help-to-open-hormuz-vowed-china-won-t-arm-iran-1778772642135">Trump claims Xi offered help to open Hormuz, vowed China won’t arm Iran</a> “They wanted to intimidate me. Mujhe darana chahte the. I refuse to be intimidated,” the judge remarked in open court.&nbsp;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.”&nbsp;Justice Sharma also referred to statements allegedly made by AAP leaders questioning her ideological neutrality, including remarks linking her to the BJP and RSS.&nbsp;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.&nbsp;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.&nbsp;Justice Sharma also indicated that separate proceedings could be initiated against certain YouTubers and online platforms accused of amplifying “contemptuous” content targeting the judiciary.&nbsp;“We are in the process of collating materials,” the Court said.

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.

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.

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.

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

Amid the hearing of the liquor policy case, former Delhi Chief Minister and AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal on Monday (April 13, 2026) alleged that Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had attended an event hosted by Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyer’s body linked with the RSS, four times. Kejriwal also demanded that Justice Sharma be removed from the hearing of a CBI petition related to the case. Arvind Kejriwal argued that there was a serious and genuine concern that the proceedings before the judge might not be impartial. He stated his opposition to the BJP-RSS ideology and described the Delhi liquor policy case as politically motivated. "There’s a lawyer’s body, Adhivakta Parishad. It is an ideological body of the BJP and RSS. Your honour has attended its events four times. The ideology they follow is something we strongly oppose, and we oppose it openly. This case is political," said Kejriwal in court.<h3>Kejriwal alleges possible bias</h3>In his submissions, Kejriwal alleged possible bias and questioned whether a judge’s association with events linked to a particular ideology could affect fairness. Citing Supreme Court observations, he said, “In a functional democracy, perception matters,” and also invoked past comments describing the CBI as a “caged parrot,” arguing that investigative agencies must maintain independence and dispel perceptions of bias. He further claimed that the court itself had observed that the CBI was “subject to political bias.” Kejriwal contended that if a judge participates in events tied to a specific ideology, it could create reasonable apprehension for an accused with opposing views, questioning whether “If I am from the opposite ideology, will I get justice?” He also alleged urgency in hearings that include Opposition leaders, and stated that cases involving political opponents of the nation were rushed at a faster rate, and that there was undue haste in hearings and filings. In the Delhi liquor policy case, Arvind Kejriwal alleged that the High Court had effectively accepted most of the submissions made by the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation, stating that “every prayer by ED and CBI has turned into a judgment, except in one case.” However, on February 27, the trial court cleared Kejriwal, former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, and 21 others, sharply criticising the CBI and stating that its case could not withstand judicial scrutiny and was entirely discredited.&nbsp;Also read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-you-argued-well-can-be-a-lawyer-hc-judge-to-arvind-kejriwal-during-liquor-case-hearings-1776146025929"> 'You argued well, can be a lawyer': HC Judge to Arvind Kejriwal during liquor case hearings</a>&nbsp;

Arvind Kejriwal argued that there was a serious and genuine concern that the proceedings before the judge might not be impartial. He stated his opposition to the BJP-RSS ideology and described the Delhi liquor policy case as politically motivated.

Amid the hearing of the liquor policy case, former Delhi Chief Minister and AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal on Monday (April 13, 2026) alleged that Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had attended an event hosted by Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyer’s body linked with the RSS, four times. Kejriwal also demanded that Justice Sharma be removed from the hearing of a CBI petition related to the case. Arvind Kejriwal argued that there was a serious and genuine concern that the proceedings before the judge might not be impartial. He stated his opposition to the BJP-RSS ideology and described the Delhi liquor policy case as politically motivated. "There’s a lawyer’s body, Adhivakta Parishad. It is an ideological body of the BJP and RSS. Your honour has attended its events four times. The ideology they follow is something we strongly oppose, and we oppose it openly. This case is political," said Kejriwal in court. Kejriwal alleges possible bias In his submissions, Kejriwal alleged possible bias and questioned whether a judge’s association with events linked to a particular ideology could affect fairness. Citing Supreme Court observations, he said, “In a functional democracy, perception matters,” and also invoked past comments describing the CBI as a “caged parrot,” arguing that investigative agencies must maintain independence and dispel perceptions of bias. He further claimed that the court itself had observed that the CBI was “subject to political bias.” Kejriwal contended that if a judge participates in events tied to a specific ideology, it could create reasonable apprehension for an accused with opposing views, questioning whether “If I am from the opposite ideology, will I get justice?” He also alleged urgency in hearings that include Opposition leaders, and stated that cases involving political opponents of the nation were rushed at a faster rate, and that there was undue haste in hearings and filings. In the Delhi liquor policy case, Arvind Kejriwal alleged that the High Court had effectively accepted most of the submissions made by the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation, stating that “every prayer by ED and CBI has turned into a judgment, except in one case.” However, on February 27, the trial court cleared Kejriwal, former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, and 21 others, sharply criticising the CBI and stating that its case could not withstand judicial scrutiny and was entirely discredited. Also read: 'You argued well, can be a lawyer': HC Judge to Arvind Kejriwal during liquor case hearings

Arvind Kejriwal argued that there was a serious and genuine concern that the proceedings before the judge might not be impartial. He stated his opposition to the BJP-RSS ideology and described the Delhi liquor policy case as politically motivated.

Arvind Kejriwal targets judge in liquor policy case hearing, alleges of attending 'RSS linked-events' 4 times

swarana-kanta-sharma

Swarana Kanta Sharma, News on Swarana Kanta Sharma, stories on Swarana Kanta Sharma, articles on Swarana Kanta Sharma, Swarana Kanta Sharma stories at Wion, Swarana Kanta Sharma news, Swarana Kanta Sharma latest news

swarana kanta-sharma

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

Arvind Kejriwal targets alleges judge of attending 'RSS linked-events' 4 times