New Delhi, May 21 (IANS) A fresh petition seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings has been filed before the Delhi High Court against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor and former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, party leader Saurabh Bharadwaj, MLA Gopal Rai and investigative journalist Saurav Das over alleged “scandalous and contemptuous” social media posts targeting Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in connection with the excise policy case.
The petition, filed by advocate Ashok Chaitanya under Section 15(1)(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution, alleged that the respondents carried out a “concerted and orchestrated campaign” on social media platform X against Justice Sharma, a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court.
“The respondents have engaged in a concerted and orchestrated campaign on social media platform ‘X’, publishing and disseminating scandalous and contemptuous content against a sitting judge of this Hon’ble Court,” the plea stated.
The matter is scheduled to be heard on Friday by a Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja.
The petition stated that after the trial court discharged the accused persons in the alleged excise policy corruption case, the CBI moved a criminal revision petition before the Delhi High Court, which came to be listed before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the plea claimed, attempts were made to seek transfer of the case and later recusal of the judge.
It is alleged that while the recusal application was still sub judice, the respondents initiated a social media campaign targeting Justice Sharma.
“While the said recusal application was sub judice, the respondents initiated a concerted and orchestrated campaign on the social media platform ‘X’ (formerly Twitter), publishing and amplifying content containing serious, unfounded, and scandalous allegations against the Hon’ble Judge,” the plea stated.
The petition alleged that the impugned posts attempted to portray the judge as biased and raised allegations of conflict of interest and impropriety on the basis of purported professional engagements of her family members. Claiming that the social media campaign amounted to an attempt to scandalise the judiciary and interfere with the administration of justice, the petitioner-in-person sought initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the respondents.
“The actions of the respondents are calculated to scandalise the Court, lower the authority of the institution and interfere with the administration of justice,” the plea contended.
Earlier, on Tuesday, the Delhi High Court had issued notices to Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh and other AAP leaders in suo moto criminal contempt proceedings initiated over alleged attempts to scandalise the judiciary in connection with the excise policy case.
In its order, a Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja recorded that the contempt proceedings had been initiated based on an earlier order passed on May 14, in which Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had taken exception to material allegedly circulated against the judiciary in a “derogatory” manner.
“The proceedings have been initiated based on the order dated May 14. The single judge has placed reliance on the material from social media posts and other electronic and publication records. The Registry is directed to preserve copies of the same and place them before this Court,” the Delhi High Court had observed.
It had issued notices to the alleged contemnors, including AAP leaders Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra and Durgesh Pathak, granting them four weeks to file their replies.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 4. During the hearing, no counsel had appeared on behalf of the alleged contemnors, following which the Justice Chawla-led Bench indicated that it may appoint an amicus curiae to assist the court.
The contempt proceedings stemmed from an order passed by Justice Sharma, who had observed that a “coordinated social media campaign” was carried out to scandalise the judiciary after she refused to recuse from hearing the excise policy case.
In a detailed order, Justice Sharma had said that the actions of the proposed contemnors were “calculated to scandalise the Court, lower the authority of the institution of justice, interfere with the administration of justice, and intimidate the independent exercise of judicial functions”.
The judge had observed that while criticism of judicial orders is permissible, there exists “a very thin line” between fair criticism and attempts to portray a judge as biased through organised campaigns.
“The Court cannot permit erosion of the constitutional system and the justice delivery mechanism by tolerating such assaults in the name of public discourse,” the Delhi High Court had said.
Justice Sharma had clarified that initiation of contempt proceedings was not due to any personal grievance but was aimed at protecting the integrity of the judiciary.
She subsequently recused herself from hearing the main excise policy matter, observing that the case could be heard by another Bench to avoid any perception of bias.
Following the recusal, Justice Manoj Jain was assigned to hear the CBI’s revision plea challenging the trial court order discharging Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the alleged corruption case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy.
The trial court, in a judgment spanning more than 1,100 paragraphs, had discharged all accused persons, holding that the now-scrapped excise policy was the outcome of a consultative and deliberative process and that the prosecution failed to establish any overarching conspiracy.
In its revision petition before the Delhi High Court, the CBI has alleged that the excise policy framed by the then AAP-led Delhi government was manipulated to favour select liquor traders in exchange for kickbacks.
–IANS
pds/dan
About the Author
