Days after justice Swarana Kanta Sharma initiated criminal contempt proceedings against former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders and withdrew herself from hearing related matters, two separate benches of the Delhi High Court are scheduled to hear the cases on Tuesday.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI’s) appeal against the trial court’s February 27 order discharging Kejriwal and others in the Delhi excise policy case will be heard by a bench headed by justice Manoj Jain, while the criminal contempt proceedings will be heard by a division bench comprising justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja.
The matter began on February 27 when a trial court discharged Kejriwal and others in the excise policy case. The CBI later challenged the in Delhi High Court.
On March 9, justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental action against a CBI officer and deferred Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings. Kejriwal later sought transfer of the matter, which was rejected by chief justice DK Upadhyaya on March 13.
On April 5, Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others sought justice Sharma’s recusal from the case, which was dismissed on April 20. On April 27, Kejriwal informed the judge that he would boycott the proceedings.Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak also sent similar letters.
On May 5, the court decided to appoint senior advocates as amicus curiae to represent the three leaders, but the matter was deferred on three occasions.
On Thursday, the judge initiated contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, Sisodia, Pathak, Sanjay Singh and Saurabh Bhardwaj over allegedly defamatory and contemptuous social media content against the judge.
She then withdrew herself from the case, stating that a judge initiating contempt proceedings could not continue hearing the same case. However, she clarified that her earlier April 20 order refusing to recuse from the excise policy case stands.
Justice Sharma said that after the recusal plea was rejected, Kejriwal adopted a course of “vilification” and “intimidation.” The judge observed that instead of challenging the order before the Supreme Court, Kejriwal issued a letter boycotting the proceedings and released a video allegedly making false allegations against her.
She said his actions sought to sow distrust among the public against her, attribute political influence and lack of judicial independence to the court, and undermine its authority.
